Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EXETER CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOV- ERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (CITY OF OXFORD) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Plowden Committee (Report)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Aviation what conclusions he has come to as a result of the Plowden Committee Report.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The Government's preliminary views were outlined in the debate on 1st February. We are discussing these matters with the industry and I hope in due course to be able to let the House have our more considered conclusions.

Mr. Hastings: Would the Minister agree that what the industry urgently needs to know is, first, what it has to develop and make in the years ahead, and secondly, with whom it has to deal? In spite of the Plowden inquiry, is it not a fact that it has existed in a state of perpetual uncertainty for the best part of two years? Is it not madness to continue to treat in this way an industry which in May alone was responsible for over £24 million worth of exports?

Mr. Malley: I agree that in all industries certainty is desirable. But I would not accept that all responsibility rests with the Government, just as I do not accept for the Government credit for the industry's excellent export record. Equally, decisions about what aircraft it makes, and so on, are as much, if not more, for the companies than for the Government. On the defence side, which is the Government's particular interest, the defence requirements for the years ahead are stated in the Defence Review.

Mr. Edelman: Would my right hon. Friend say what steps he has taken to convene a European conference of aircraft producers, as recommended by the Plowden Committee?

Mr. Mulley: The Plowden Committee recommended a conference of European Aviation Ministers. Until it is clearer what kind of useful agenda can be drawn up for such a meeting, I do not think that it is worth calling a conference. I hope that it may be possible to do so later in the year. I have met a great number of my colleagues in the last few months.

Mr. R. Carr: Does not the Minister recollect that the Government deliberately took the debate on the Plowden Report, to which he referred, on a"take note"Motion so that they could hear the House's views before making a decision? The Plowden Report has been before us for seven months. How much longer will the Government sit on it?

Mr. Mulley: It is not a matter of sitting on the Report. A number of the 23 detailed recommendations have been already implemented. But the House will agree that before taking any definite decisions on the major matters it would be right to discuss them fully with the industry.

F111A Aircraft

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Aviation what nav-attack system is to be fitted to the British version of the F111A; whether it will meet the full British operational requirement; and what the basic price for the aircraft equipped for the British requirement is now likely to be.

Mr. Mulley: The definition of this system is being carried out in consultation with the U.S. Government. It will


meet the R.A.F. requirement completely, and its cost is included in the estimated unit cost of £2·5 million for the aircraft which I have given to the House on several occasions.

Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be glad to hear that assurance, particularly since there has been widespread suspicion that the system at present installed in the F111A is capable only of a degree of accuracy consistent with nuclear strike and not with tactical strike? Secondly, it is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a reasonable length for supplementary questions.

Mr. Hastings: Secondly, is the Minister aware that it has also been widely believed that the price may be escalating to about £3 million rather than £2½, million?

Mr. Mulley: I have already said that the system will meet the R.A.F. requirement and that it will be within the estimated unit cost. If the hon. Gentleman has other information which he wishes to bring to my notice, I will consider it.

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent the modification of the F111A required by the Royal Air Force involves the use of major components, such as the undercarriage, designed for the FB111 nuclear bombers being developed for the United States Air Force.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Aviation approximately what proportion of the modifications to the F111A necessary to bring it to Royal Air Force specification are common to the F111B.

Mr. Mulley: None of the modifications to F111A necessary to bring it to the R.A.F. specification are common to the Fl 11B. Nor will the R.A.F. aircraft—designated F111K—have any major components specifically developed for the FB111 other than the strengthened undercarriage.

Mr. Carr: Does the right hon. Gentleman, then, deny the report which was published in the Daily Telegraph in February that the undercarriage of the Royal Air Force version would be the same as the undercarriage of the FB111,

similar information having been given, we understand, to the public in the United States?

Mr. Mulley: Quite apart from denying that, that is exactly what my Answer in the House said, that components would not be common to the FB111 except the undercarriage.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can the Minister tell the House whether the contract has yet been signed for the aircraft with the Royal Air Force specification?

Mr. Mulley: One does not sign one contract for the lot, but, as the hon. Member knows, because he is not unfamiliar with these matters, quite a number of contracts are involved, and the basic contracts are in any event with the United States Government, of which we have the benefit.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When we get it, if we get it, it will be able to carry nuclear bombs, will it not?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Mulley: I think the hon. Gentleman's question should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Carr: Is it not a fact that—

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member to ask the next Question on the Paper.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the insulting answer—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I have already said that these notices must be given conventionally.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

South-West England (Air Services)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Aviation what applications he has received from airlines for assistance in re-establishing air services to South-West England, in view of the fact that there is no direct link by air from the South-West to London.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Julian Snow): None, Sir.

Mr. Mills: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very serious matter and is most disturbing to say the least? Would he give every encouragement to either private operators or B.E.A. to restore this link between London and the South-West, even if it means a temporary grant or temporary subsidy to get it under way again?

Mr. Snow: No, Sir. My Department has no authority to grant such subsidies. But the question of restoring the link is for the commercial judgment of potential operators.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Adequate air services in this part of the country are an essential part of the transport network. Will my hon. Friend consider whether his Ministry could exert some pressure on British European Airways if the private concerns are unable to provide this badly needed service?

Mr. Snow: An application has been made by British Eagle to extend its present London-Newquay-Helston licence to include Exeter.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how important a service to the South-West is for the development area and the establishment of industry, because it is the inability of people to come from the Midlands or London to the new development area and get back in the same day which causes a strong disincentive to the development of subsidiary factories in the South-West?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir, the Government accept that proposition; but the airline operators have to find the customers, and that is their responsibility.

Sonic Bangs

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the anticipated effects of supersonic boom over Greater London and other parts of the British Isles.

Mr. Snow: My Department is fully conscious of the need to minimise the nuisance of sonic bangs from supersonic aircraft, and studies into this problem are

proceeding in association with the French and American authorities.

Mr. Iremonger: Will the hon. Gentleman realise that the public are not prepared yet for what they may be subjected to, and, while looking into the possibility of minimising the effect, will he do something to prepare the public for what they will have to face even if he is as successful as he hopes?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. On present information, it seems unlikely that supersonic flying will take place within 100 miles of the base airport from which these aircraft will operate. As to over-flying, we shall have to take international advice and considerations into account.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does that mean that it is now expected that civil aircraft will fly supersonically over the United Kingdom? If so, is it not a departure from previous policy statements?

Mr. Snow: That is precisely what I did not say.

Departmental Goods and Supplies (Transport)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Aviation what regulations are in force in his Department with regard to the means of delivery to be employed for goods or supplies that are ordered by the Department.

Mr. Snow: The current regulations state that the primary considerations to be taken into account are the suitability of a particular form of transport for the traffic concerned, its availability, and the need to give prompt and efficient service.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there appears to be a rule that the bulk of supplies have to go by rail, thereby incurring expensive packing for delicate equipment and machinery and vast extra cost? Will he sweep away this ossified Luddism and reintroduce the system that the cheapest be always chosen?

Mr. Snow: No, Sir. Under the reforms and reconsideration of the regulations which this Government have undertaken, consignments of really delicate material are given special consideration.

B.E.A. Domestic Services (Delays)

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will institute an inquiry into the partial breakdown in internal air services during the month of June; and if he will give further consideration to the policy of depending mainly on one airline and one type of aircraft.

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that British European Airways has for several successive days cancelled flights because aircraft are not airworthy; and whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to British European Airways to re-equip its fleet.

Mr. Mulley: No direction or inquiry is called for. The technical difficulties which have unfortunately interfered with the regularity and punctuality of some of B.E.A.'s domestic services in recent weeks were of a temporary nature and do not indicate any basic inadequacies in B.E..A.'s equipment or organisation.

Mr. Clark: Is not that answer complacent in the extreme, and does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the coincidence of a crisis in engine maintenance with the beginning of the tourist season and at the time of the seamen's strike is prima facie evidence of mismanagement in B.E.A., and that this has been confirmed in the last two days by the evidence of very low morale among B.E.A. staff? Will the Minister institute an inquiry?

Mr. Mulley: On the first point, my statement was factual. It was due to deficiency of engines and engine parts, and the responsibility for that rests not with the airline but with those who ought to have supplied them. On the second point, as the hon. Gentleman may have seen from the Press, B.E.A. itself has set up an inquiry into its form of organisation. At this stage, therefore, I do not think that there is need for a further one.

Mr. Lipton: Do not these questions and answers show that all is not well with B.E.A.? What action will my right hon. Friend take when the petition signed by over 400 B.E.A. pilots reaches him?

Mr. Mulley: I have read in the Press that a petition is to be sent to me, but I

have not so far received it. It would be irresponsible in the extreme to comment on a petition which one had not seen. I must stress that the management and running of the airlines is the responsibility of the boards and, until such time as it seems that they are not able to discharge that function, a Minister should not rush in and interfere.

Mr. R. Carr: But is it not a fact that very large numbers of passengers have been and still are suffering serious inconvenience? The Minister used the word "temporary". Should not he find out how temporary is temporary?

Mr. Mulley: The right hon. Gentleman might have credited me with the fact that on the very day that the first inconvenience was caused I made inquiries. I have gone fully into the reasons for it and the predicted end of the troubles. B.E.A. expect that these engineering problems and failure of supplies should end very shortly.

European Launcher Development Organisation

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Aviation what are the arrangements made by the European Launcher Development Organisation for the inspection and control by that Organisation of the purposes to which its funds are applied.

Mr. Mulley: Proposals to incur expenditure on the E.L.D.O. programme are examined in detail by the staff of the Organisation during the preparation of the annual budget. The budget is voted by the E.L.D.O. Council which is composed of representatives of the member countries. Subsequent expenditure is examined and verified by the E.L.D.O. staff and the Organisation auditors. Arrangements to improve control of expenditure are currently under discussion.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although expenditure may be examined, there is absolutely no physical control over what happens to the money once it has been allocated, and the French, for example, have accused the Germans of building up a complete scientific and technological infrastructure, using E.L.D.O. funds and diverting them from their original purpose? Is it not


desirable that there should be an international committee of estimates to consider this matter?

Mr. Mulley: As I said, proposals for better control have been studied and discussed in recent weeks, and the report of the group is to be presented to the Ministers tomorrow. One of the proposals is to have a corp of inspectors, which, I think, would go some way to meet the point my hon. Friend makes.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British contribution up to 31st March last was £31 million out of a total expenditure by E.L.D.O. of £80 million? In view of the massive sums entailed, can he not give the House an assurance that we here in Britain will in future have reasonable control over future expenditure?

Mr. Mulley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures in the sense that they are directed really at the previous Government for drawing up a most unsatisfactory Convention. The procedures are laid down in the Financial Protocol to the Convention which was drawn up when E.L.D.O. was started. We are trying to make some improvements both as to the amount of our contribution and as to the methods of control.

Sir G. Nabarro: In view of that highly unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment and make further strictures on the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice must be given in the conventional form.

Aircraft Industry (Designers)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will take steps to stop the loss of skilled designers from the aircraft industry.

Mr. Mulley: We are taking steps to create a healthy industry with a stable programme of work, and this should give designers the assurance they require.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 500 skilled designers have now been recruited to the American subsidiary working in this country, and is he further aware that under his leadership the life-blood of the aviation industry is draining away?
Will he put a measure of confidence back into the industry by giving it some sort of future to hold its designers?

Mr. Mulley: I must make clear, as there seems to be widespread misapprehensions, that neither I nor my Department design, manufacture or sell aeroplanes. I accept that designers are going to these other occupations. But is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should have some form of restrictive employment regulations for the aircraft industry? I am sure that that is not acceptable. As I understand it, the rates of pay offered by these American firms are greatly in excess of what the men concerned are receiving now, so that even if the work were in the British industry it might not necessarily stop the drain of which the hon. Gentleman complains.

Mr. Onslow: Would the Minister confirm that, as that Answer seems to imply that he regards the skilled men who work for Comprehensive Design Incorporated as lost to the British industry? Would he not agree to enumerate such measures as he has already taken to increase confidence in the British industry?

Mr. Mulley: I think that fully to answer that question would take rather a long time, but, as I said quite clearly, the defence requirements of the country have been studied and we are trying now to settle the outstanding civil aircraft requirements.

PX-Type Parachute

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement about the failures in the PX parachute.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Aviation why the PX-type parachute was withdrawn from service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: I much regret the needless anxiety which has been caused by an inaccurate and misleading newspaper article. The PX-type parachute was introduced into Service use in November, 1963, and there were 30,000 successful descents before two fatal accidents in 1965. An investigation of possible causes, during which use of the parachutes was temporarily suspended, revealed no basic fault although it was thought advisable to strengthen the nylon centre base tie.

Mr. Marten: Would not the Minister agree that when jumping out of aeroplanes it is rather essential that the parachutists should have absolute confidence in their equipment? [Laughter.] In view of this Press report to which the Minister referred, can he say whether the experts are now absolutely satisfied with the design and manufacture and testing of this parachute?

Mr. Snow: The House will forgive me if I ask them to consider this as a very serious matter indeed. Yes, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that this is the case, that the Services regard this as a suitable and adequate piece of equipment. I hope that my Answer will be given the widest publicity in order to rectify any damage done to morale which this ill-informed article may have occasioned.

Mr. Crawshaw: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the equipment used by the British airborne forces is considered to be amongst the best in the world and that the low incidence of failure of the parachute reflects not only great credit on the manufacturers but also on those members of the Services whose job it is to pack the parachutes?

Mr. Snow: Yes, I would, and may I say that many of the people concerned in these tests are themselves very experienced parachutists.

Mr. Webster: Can the hon. Gentleman say why a centre base tie of insufficient strength has been used for a considerable time, and is he now satisfied that the centre base tie is of adequate strength for the parachute?

Mr. Snow: The centre base tie has been increased in strength, but as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, as he is himself a skilled instructor in parachuting, it is very dangerous to have a tie which is too strong. It is a matter of finding a balance.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give the number of parachute jumps performed on a PX-type parachute in each of the last two years, respectively, and the number of irregularities analysed between thrown lines, blown peripheries and premature openings.

Mr. Snow: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These figures will show Ministry of Aviation tests and do not include Service jumps. They also include induced failures.

Mr. Webster: I appreciate the complications, but is it not regrettable that there has not been adequate high-speed photography of 400 frames per second from the same axis on a static line, since this would have shown a great deal of importance to those engaged in research?

Mr. Snow: The type of photography which has been suggested in the article to which I have referred does not necessarily commend itself to my Department. In point of fact, photographs are taken from three points for jumps during their testing. We consider this to be effective as it gives better angles of view.

Following is the answer:

July, 1964– 
 July, 1965– 



June, 1965
June, 1966


Descents (live and dummy)
679
3,891


Including blown peripheries
3
93*


Including premature breaks
2
11†


* Includes 46 deliberately induced during trials and 21 caused by aircraft flying at higher than normal speeds.


† Includes 10 deliberately induced during trials.

British Aerospace Industry

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking, in the interests of maintaining the sales at home and abroad of the British aerospace industry, to publicise its achievements.

Mr. Mulley: My Department, in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, assists the industry's own extensive publicity effort in a number of ways, for example, exhibitions such as the recent joint Ministry of Aviation/S.B.A.C. contribution to the Hanover Air Show, films, and the distribution of publicity material overseas through the official Overseas Services. On 3rd to 6th June I sponsored a Conference of Commonwealth Airlines at which the airlines had full opportunity to discuss their requirements with representatives of the British aircraft industry.

Mr. Onslow: While the House will be grateful for that Answer, could the Minister say whether he saw or has called for a transcript of the B.B.C's programme "Twenty-four Hours" of 22nd June, and what action he has taken to make representations to the B.B.C. against yet another example of unbalanced knocking at British achievements in the aircraft industry?

Mr. Mulley: I have no responsibility for B.B.C. programmes, and on the night in question I did not see it because at the invitation of the S.B.A.C. I was present at their dinner as their guest.

Mr. R. Carr: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to look at the transcript? Is he aware that it really was a most serious denigration of the British aircraft industry? While he has no responsibility for the B.B.C., should he not make representations to them?

Mr. Mulley: I have not seen the transcript. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] I have discussed the complaint with the Society, which arranged the programme with the B.B.C., and I know that their complaint is being considered by the B.B.C.

Mr. Rankin: Would it not be easier to publicise British achievements in aerospace if instead of having six Ministries doing the job we had one Ministry?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Onslow for the next Question.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment—before the Minister has disappeared.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will give notices of intention to raise matters on the Adjournment conventionally. Otherwise such notices can take up a lot of time.

Concord Aircraft

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will publish six-monthly reports on the progress of the Concord project.

Mr. Mulley: I accept that the House should be kept as fully informed as possible about the progress of this project but I am not sure that the rigid timetable proposed is the best means.

Mr. Onslow: Would the Minister not agree that it is important that the House should be kept aware of the expenditure involved and the methods by which it is being controlled, and would he not agree that there is an excellent case here for extension of the specialist committee system in relation to this particular project?

Mr. Mulley: I am not exactly sure what the hon. Member has in mind about a particular specialist committee for one project, because I doubt if hon. Members would necessarily want to devote their time to the detail necessary. That, anyway, is not a matter for me. However, I do accept the principle that the House should be kept as fully informed as possible.

British European Airways (Aircraft)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Aviation what proposals have been put to him by British European Airways regarding their future needs for new aircraft and whether he has yet made a decision regarding these proposals.

Mr. Mulley: B.E.A. are evaluating various possible combinations of aircraft, British and American, which would furnish the extra capacity they will need after 1969. No decisions can be taken until the work of evaluation is complete. I shall make a statement as soon as I can.

Mr. Carr: Does the Minister mean by that reply that he has not received any definite submissions from B.E.A.? If so, could he make that clear? Secondly, would he assure the House that he will make a statement to it while it is sitting and before we rise for the Summer Recess about this decision, which is probably the most single important decision for the future of civil aircraft manufacturing in the country?

Mr. Mulley: I will give the undertaking, and I will make a statement as soon as possible, and I hope that it will be done before the House rises for the


Recess. I also accept the great importance of this decision. B.E.A. has put forward a number of combinations and, at my request, it is now studying others, to cover the whole range of possibilities as to its needs.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it puzzles many hon. Members why B.E.A. should have to go to America to look for a medium-sized airbus or a Boeing 737, in view of the fact that this year the British Aircraft Corporation will be selling 120 million dollars' worth of aircraft to America against a tax of 10 per cent.? Can my fight hon. Friend assure us that B.E.A. will not come back with the BAC111?

Mr. Mulley: When a matter of this importance to the Corporation has to be settled as to its future plans, it is only right that all possibilities should be evaluated. I know that B.E.A. is hoping that it will be able to continue its policy of flying British, as it has done successfully in the past.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many hon. Members in all parts of the House who believe that our national airlines ought to fly British? When he is making up his mind, will he consider and recollect that B.O.A.C. strongly recommended that it should go entirely American against the VC10, and that the VC10 has proved to be a very attractive and economical aircraft? Would not the same apply to British aircraft for B.E.A.?

Mr. Mulley: As I have said, I hope very much that a British solution can be found to the problem.

European Airbus

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement regarding the present position of the negotiations for the production of a European airbus.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on the joint venture with France to produce a medium range jet airbus; and what difficulties have intervened to delay: progress in completing this jet aircraft.

Mr. Mulley: Yes, Sir. Ministerial and official discussions have taken place

on several occasions in recent weeks with the French and German Governments on the projected civil airbus. An outline specification for a short-haul, high-capacity aircraft has now been agreed, apart from the choice of engine, and further talks are planned during the next few weeks.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the course of these discussions, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed any cooling-off on the part of the French since the observations of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Mulley: I can give a categorical answer to that: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, and I hope that the good relations which seem now to have been established will continue.

North-East (Electronics Industry)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Aviation what action he is taking to encourage the development of the electronics industry in the north-east of England.

Mr. Snow: Electronics firms in the North-East are considered for Ministry of Aviation contracts on the same basis as firms in the rest of the country.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the developing electronics firms in the North-East have formed an association, on the advice of the Government, in the hope that that would bring some further development contracts? They are now placed to receive them but have not had any offers at all.

Mr. Snow: I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend. The existence of the association is very well known, if for no better reason than that we have given it advice as to how to organise itself to compete for Government contracts. However, we have no power within the Department to extend a capacity which, generally speaking, is fairly adequate.

Indonesia (Aircraft Sales)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation whether Her Majesty's Government will now permit the sale of British manufactured aero-engines and


civil aircraft, respectively, to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: Applications for export licences to supply British civil aircraft and engines to Indonesia will be considered on their merits.

Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree to lift the ban on the sale of the Skyvan aircraft to Indonesia?

Mr. Mulley: If an application is made for the sale of Skyvans, it will be considered on its merits, as I have said. As well as the political aspect, there are also the financial aspects to be considered in a sale of that kind.

Mr. Henry Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman have consultations with his colleague, the Minister of Overseas Development, to ensure that the £1 million that we have just given to Indonesia is not spent on buying foreign aircraft which are only equivalent to those available in this country?

Mr. Mulley: The control of the £1 million is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who referred to the matter in his statement on Monday. Further questions about that should be addressed to him. In principle, I would not think it right that that loan should be tied to specific purchases of aircraft.

V.T.O. Aircraft (Research)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation what support he is giving to research and development into multi-jet and deflected jet vertical take-off and landing aircraft, respectively, with a view to determining the most suitable type and formulating a naval requirement which can be met by the British aircraft industry.

Mr. Mulley: A flight research programme using the S.C.1 multi-jet and P.1127 vectored thrust V/STOL aircraft is under way. The results will of course be available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is responsible for the formulation of operational requirements.

Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite this research and development in order to stop the brain

drain which was referred to earlier, so that this country does not lose the advantages of the lead which it has in this revolutionary form of propulsion?

Mr. Mulley: I can confirm that the research is continuing and, as regards the P1127, development and production contracts have already been placed.

Transport Aircraft

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation what discussions he has had with the industry on the part to be played by Great Britain in meeting the longterm world demand for civil transport aircraft.

Mr. Mulley: My Department is in constant touch with the industry on this subject, which is currently being considered by the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee on which the industry is represented.

Mr. Marten: As the period of gestation of an aircraft is about seven to ten years, could the Minister say whether he is having discussions about the generation of aircraft after the Concord?

Mr. Mulley: I have not had any discussions on the further generation of supersonic aircraft, but, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, we have been actively concerned with the subsonic airbus, on which I have already answered Questions this afternoon.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a book shortly to be published, Mr. Worcester makes the claim that he was close to the Labour leadership and advised it about the future structure of the British aircraft industry which has led to the cancellation of so many projects? Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman himself was in the chair when that advice was given to the Labour Party?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a Question of one of my hon. Friends down for Written Answer today. In view of his Question, I will give him the Answer now. I am asked on what occasions we have had the official advice of Mr. Worcester during the lifetime of this Government. The Answer is: None. Mr. Worcester, among


many other experts in the field, did partake in discussions with me and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends when we were in opposition, in the same way that I imagine right hon and hon. Gentlemen opposite, consult people in the industry now on these matters.>

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. As my right hon. Friend has answered Written Question No. 1 put by me, may I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: If that was the hon. Gentleman's Written Question, yes.

Mr. Rankin: Then may I thank my right hon. Friend for putting Mr. Worcester in his proper place?

Dectra Navigation System

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to encourage further development of the Decca omnitrac navigation system to enable it to be accepted as the standard long range safety navigational aid, particularly on oceanic routes.

Mr. Snow: Flight trials of the Dectra aircraft navigation system were recently carried out at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment, Boscombe Down. An operational evaluation of the system will begin in 1967. Major transatlantic airline operators have been invited to fit the equipment for a year, and to report on its use.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have seen the system in operation have been greatly impressed by it, as also have the pilots who were with us? Will he say whether or not there are any competing systems and what attention they are receiving from the Government?

Mr. Snow: There is only one other system, made by the same company, which has been brought to our attention. But I might say that the Government are helping very substantially in the installation of equipment supplied by the company for experimental purposes.

Radome Site, Christchurch

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will give an assurance that no further development at the radome site at Steamer Point, Friars

Cliff, Christchurch, will proceed without consultation with the local authority; and that steps will be taken to avoid any further encroachment on the amenities of local residents.

Mr. Snow: The local authority will be consulted, as in the past, on new developments. Steamer Point is planned to continue in use as a site for telecommunications research and development, but it is not expected that this will encroach upon local amenities.

Mr. Cordle: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the deprecating effect of this development on local property values and on adjacent thoroughfares, particularly Seaway Avenue, which has traffic which is ten times greater than before the development took place?

Mr. Snow: Consultations took place with the local authority, in conformity with the Minister of Housing and Local Government's Circular No. 100, and continuing consultations will take place if objections of that nature are raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Pensioners and Chronically Sick (Licences)

Mr. Hornby: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will revive the practice of granting a single broadcasting licence to cover all broadcasting instruments used in an old people's home.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): No, Sir. This change was made some years ago because it was unfair to retirement pensioners generally and to others if one group of people were exempted from taking out licences for sets used in their private quarters. I am afraid that this argument is still valid.

Mr. Hornby: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that broadcasting offers a great deal of enjoyment to people who for one reason or another are unable to live in their own homes? Will he, therefore, at this moment when he has relaxed his Whip over his colleagues, consider taking a rather more generous attitude on this matter?

Mr. Short: I have great sympathy with this question. The truth is that up


to 1952 the Postmaster-General turned a blind eye to what was in effect a breach of the law, and I do not think that we can now resume this amiable practice. However, there is an anomaly, and I am prepared to look at this.

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the approximate annual cost of introducing a 20 per cent. reduction in television and radio licence fees for retirement pensioners and chronically sick persons.

Mr. Edward Short: No assessment is available of the number of the chronic sick nor of how many have television sets. No precise estimate can be made of the cost of a concession to retirement pensioners, but I understand it would be in the region of £2 million to £4 million a year.

Mr. Walker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Is it not obvious that the cost involved in the second of my two Questions is only a fraction of what will be recovered by the application of the proposed measure? Will he, therefore, make these people his first priority in disbursing any funds which may arise from the measures he proposes?

Mr. Short: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view, but I do not think that this is a way of helping these people.

Licence Fees (Evasion)

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the annual loss of revenue from the evasion of television and radio licence fees; and what action he is taking to reduce the loss.

Mr. Edward Short: Some £9 million. Inquiries of households not recorded as licensed will be intensified, and the number of detector cars is being doubled. I am also considering ways in which dealers themselves could help in the enforcement of the licence system.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walker.

Mr. Walker: Question No. 30.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No point of order can arise. Mr. Walker.

B.B.C.2 Programmes (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Postmaster-General when the B.B.C.2 programme network promised to the Newcastle-on-Tyne area for September, 1965, is to be implemented.

Mr. Edward Short: The construction time-table for B.B.C. stations is, of course, primarily a matter for the Corporation itself. But I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that I understand that it now hopes to start test transmissions from the Pontop Pike B.B.C.2 transmitter, which will serve Newcastle-on-Tyne, in September and normal transmissions in October.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information. Is not he now very glad that he is no longer the Chief Whip but the Postmaster-General?

Mr. Bryan: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on his appointment, and to say that we look forward to debating with him and hearing his views on the many problems that his predecessor left unresolved? On the Question, can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of listeners in areas covered by B.B.C.2—or alleged to be covered by B.B.C.2—are having difficulty in getting a signal, or are getting no signal at all?

Mr. Short: I thank the hon. Member for the first part of his supplementary question—if it was a question—and would like to say that I, in turn, look forward to debating with him. He will certainly hear my views on many matters in the very near future. As for the second point, he will have to put down a Question.

Broadcasting Services (Review)

Mr. Boston: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what decision the Government has made about the proposal to set up local radio stations;

(2) when he expects to publish the results of his review of the broadcasting services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: The Government's review of broadcasting services, which includes the question of local sound broadcasting, is not yet completed, but the House will certainly be informed of decisions as soon as they have been taken.

Mr. Boston: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is keeping open the idea of allowing the B.B.C. to go ahead with a pilot scheme? Can he also say whether reports this week, notably in The Times on Monday, that the Government have come down against commercial stations are correct? If so, many of us will feel very pleased about it.

Mr. Short: I cannot anticipate the findings of the review, but I can go as far as to assure my hon. Friend that I will certainly maintain public service principles in any proposals I bring to the House with regard to local sound broadcasting.

Mr. Mawby: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this decision must obviously go hand-in-hand with the decision concerning pirate radio stations? Will he disabuse his mind of the view put forward by his hon. Friend that local stations should be confined to the B.B.C.?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that I do not agree with that. This point was put from the Opposition benches when this matter was raised before. There is no connection between the two matters. We shall look at sound broadcasting on its merits, quite apart from the question of the pirate stations.

Mr. Bryan: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to look back in his papers? It he has he will have found that the Answer he has given to this Question is the same answer as that which we have had for one-and-a-half years. Will he at least give us an assurance that before this Session is over we shall receive that White Paper?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Mail (Commercial Papers)

Dr. Winstanley: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the effects upon British exporting industries of the abolition of the commercial papers

category of mail by the Universal Postal Union in 1964; and if he will seek to reverse this decision at a future meeting of the Union.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this point and these will be taken into account when preparations for the next Congress are being made. This will not, however, be until 1969.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one major exporting firm has put its additional cost of postage on export invoices, bills of lading, and certificates of insurance at £20,000 a year? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not helpful to our exporters, and will he consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to whom representations have also been made?

Mr. Slater: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's observations in regard to a particular firm, but, after all, we opposed the change at Congress on the ground that it withdrew a long-standing concession to business users and increased postal costs of international trade. This was our objection, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, just as this change applies to our people in this country, so it applies to other countries as well, and therefore it must lie over until the next Congress.

Houses and Flats (Post Boxes)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will have consultations with builders of houses with front gardens to ascertain if it would be possible to have post boxes at the gate or entrance to the path leading to the front door;

(2) whether he will consult with local local authorities and others concerned in the building of flats to see if it is possible to have a set of post-boxes on the ground floor for each individual flat, in order to save the postman climbing up and down many flights of steps. as has to be done in many cases.

Mr. Joseph Slater: My right hon. Friend is anxious to encourage developments in both these directions, we have done and are doing a good deal to persuade local authorities and property developers to instal these boxes, not only


in blocks of flats but in offices as well, and we are considering whether a positive inducement could be offered. We have tried garden gate delivery, but the arrangement was not favoured by the residents. Nevertheless there are advantages to the Post Office in garden gate boxes and we intend to pursue the possibilities further.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that I first put down a similar Question as long ago as 1958 and that the matter is still being considered? Does not he think that it is a waste of time and energy for postmen to have to climb at least four flights of stairs in blocks of flats where there are no lifts, and also that it is a waste of time and energy for them to have to climb sixteen steps to the front door, as happens in Plymouth, to deliver perhaps one letter? Many countries overseas have the facilities for which I am asking.

Mr. Slater: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady has said about multi-storey flats, and it is true, as she said, that she asked an identical Question as far back as 1958. Head postmasters have been instructed to approach local authorities and others to encourage them to provide facilities for central delivery. Some progress is being made, mainly in office blocks. For example, at Leeds 53 multi-storey offices have some form of central delivery, and we shall pursue this system as vigorously as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

London—Belfast (Delays)

Mr. Pounder: asked the Postmaster-General how often during the past six months there have been delays on telephone lines between London and Belfast; and how this compares with a year previously.

Mr. Edward Short: Except on the occasion of cable faults there have been no serious delays between London and Belfast since March when the number of circuits available was increased by 20 per cent.

Mr. Pounder: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he give the House any idea of what plans there

are for further increases on the trunk line between London and Belfast, bearing in mind the ever-growing volume of traffic on this line?

Mr. Short: I am giving urgent and personal attention to the question of forecasting, because it is a vital matter. The number of circuits was increased from 159 to 189 in March, and I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we hope to increase the number of circuits by another 15 per cent. at the end of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Efficiency

Mr. Moonman: asked the Lord President of the Council (1) whether, to ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency of the House of Commons, he will move to set up a Select Committee of Members from all sides of the House with experience of operational research and other management sciences:

(2) if he will appoint consultants from outside the House of Commons, with a view to ensuring greater effectiveness and efficiency of the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): There is no need to set up a Select Committee since the functions proposed are already carried out by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) which can, if it wishes, call upon expert assistance within or outside the House. An O. & M. study of the work and staffing of certain departments in the House is at present being conducted.

Mr. Moonman: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an important need to improve both the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of the services in the House, which are not covered by the present study? Will he use his influence with the Prime Minister to ensure that he is able to get an invitation to the forthcoming National Productivity Conference?

Mr. Bowden: Perhaps my hon. Friend will address his second question to the Prime Minister. With regard to the first point, I think that the House of Commons


Services Committee is adequate to deal with this, but it can call for outside experience and representation if it wishes.

Catering and Accommodation Areas (Air Conditioning)

Mr. Freeson: asked the Lord President of the Council when the Catering and Accommodation Sub-Committee will be submitting a scheme for air conditioning in the kitchen, cafeteria and dining areas of the House of Commons.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have been asked to reply.
The Catering Sub-Committee is about to begin a full investigation into the refreshment facilities and the accommodation in which these facilities have to be provided and they will consult the Accommodation and Housekeeping Sub-Committee, as necessary. The question of air conditioning will no doubt be considered during this investigation.

Mr. Freeson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, sympathetic as it sounded. May I ask her and her colleagues to bear very much in mind the need to do away with the antiquated and oppressive conditions which the staff and Members of the House have to experience in these parts of this building.

Mrs. Braddock: We are very concerned about the position, and, as I said in my Answer, the matter is being fully looked into.

Accommodation

Mr. Freeson: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate joint arrangements by which wider-used accommodation might be made available in another place for use by the House of Commons.

Mr. Bowden: The use of accommodation in another place is, of course, a matter for them, but if there is spare accommodation anywhere we might have joint discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIRATE RADIO STATION (SHIVERING SANDS)

Sir. J. Hobson: asked the Attorney-General whether he will refer recent events at Shivering Sands to the Director

of Public Prosecutions for investigation, with a view to instituting criminal proceedings; and if he will make a statement thereafter.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The police have already reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions upon the events in question. The Director is considering the report.

Sir J. Hobson: Does this mean that the Attorney-General takes the view that Shivering Sands are within the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and that law and order can be enforced there by Her Majesty's Government? If so, why did he advisè the Postmaster-General about the possibility of prosecution under the Wireless Telegraphy Act? Can he say whether the proposed Bill to be introduced by the Postmaster-General will bring these within the territorial jurisdiction or not?

The Attorney-General: If I may say so, they are Shivering Sands rather than Shivering Stands, but the position is that under the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878, indictable offences committed in territorial waters are within the jurisdiction of the courts of this country. The question of summary jurisdiction will have to be determined by the courts if my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General decides to institute summary proceedings under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying, in effect, that in his view it is in order for proceedings to be taken? If he is going to institute proceedings, will he include in them Radio Scotland, which is at present moored within territorial waters?

The Attorney-General: All these matters are now under active consideration.

Mr. Bryan: Will the learned Attorney-General confirm that the Port of London Authority pays a fee to the Postmaster-General for a licence to broadcast mechanically from Shivering Sands? If so, how is it that the pirates escape this obligation?

The Attorney-General: No doubt these matters can be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General if a Question is put down to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — OBSCENE NOVELS AND MAGAZINES

Sir J. Hobson: asked the Attorney-General how many obscene novels and obscene magazines, respectively, were seized by the police and customs authorities in 1965.

The Attorney-General: 180,808 books and 1,076,139 magazines.

Sir J. Hobson: Is there any reason why the number of novels dealt with in 1965 was less than half the number dealt with in any of the previous five years?

The Attorney-General: The difficulty is that the flood of pornography arose when the last Conservative Government, in 1961, lifted the restrictions on the importation of printed matter. The authorities did what they could to stop the flood. Unfortunately, saturation point having been reached, what is going on now is a topping-up procedure. The authorities are doing the best they can to prevent the flood so unhappily initiated under a Tory Administration.

Mr. Freeson: Can the Attorney-General tell the House what size staff is employed to arrive at the conclusion that such huge quantities of imported literature should be designated as pornographic?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that it needs a great staff to decide that. This stuff if filthy trash, and nobody has any difficulty in identifying it as such.

Mr. William Price: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether or not the police have seized any of the obscene literature being published by the Tory Central Office?

Sir G. Nabarro: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the precursor of this flood of pornography was the legitimising of the distribution of "Lady Chatterley's Lover"? Does not he recall, also, that the leading counsel who won the case was the present Lord Chancellor—a Socialist?

The Attorney-General: The qualities as counsel of my noble friend the Lord Chancellor have won the admiration of the whole legal profession and of both Houses of Parliament. The serious point to be made is that no pretensions of having any literary merit at all can

possibly be raised even by the most generous critic in respect of those publications that have been seized and, I hope, pulped.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Meat Prices (Selective Employment Tax)

Sir F. Pearson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now give an estimate' of the increase during the next 12 months in the retail price of meat as a result of the Selective Employment Tax and other Government Measures.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. James Hoy): I have nothing to add to the reply on the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on food prices generally which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on 17th May. As to other measures, I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind, but would draw to his attention the Government's declared policy on productivity, prices and incomes, and the provisions of the National Plan.

Sir F. Pearson: Will the Minister recognise that his answer is extremely ill-defined and unhelpful? Does he realise that the Selective Employment Tax will increase the cost of retailing meat through its application to at least four stages of meat processing? Does he also realise that the suspension of investment allowances and the levy laid down by the Agriculture Bill are likely to lead to a substantial increase in retail prices?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member is quite wrong on the latter point. Secondly, as my hon. Friend said in that Answer, food prices may increase, but generally the increase will be no greater than about two-thirds of 1 per cent. That is what the hon. Member is complaining about, and no more than that.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the decision of the Monopolies Commission to disallow the proposed merger of the Ross Group of


fishing companies and Associated Fisheries, he will introduce legislation to nationalise the fishing industry.

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say why that merger was refused, and what principle is applied to such cases? Is he national interest considered?

Mr. Hoy: Yes. In the first place the majority of the Commission opposed the merger for the reasons given in the Report. Secondly, the Government did not see any good reason for dissenting from the Report.

Dogs (Quarantine Regulations)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the protective injections now available, he will take steps to reduce the time dogs entering this country have to spend in quarantine.

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. Unfortunately vaccination does not protect in every case and will not cure animals already infected.

Mr. Wall: How many years has this period of quarantine been enforced? Is ii not a fact that medical science has made considerable progress during this time? Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again because of the hardship and expense which it causes to owners of dogs?

Mr. Hoy: The rule has been enforced for many years, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Rabies is a terrible disease. Once it is established among wild life, it is impossible to eradicate. Any Government worth their salt must see that it does not prevail.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of certain cases of dogs coming in under this period of quarantine through Eire?

Mr. Hoy: No, we have no experience of that.

Dr. Kerr: Would my hon. Friend please make it clear that rabies has no known cure and that even one case being imported into this country might rapidly extend this terrible disease to wild life and then to the human community?

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that Question. I had hoped

that, in reply to the first supplementary, I had made this clear. This would be a tremendous danger. If any Government took any action which allowed this to happen, they could not escape responsibility for what might be a grave danger throughout the country.

POLICE FORCES, SCOTLAND (AMALGAMATION)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I promised on 23rd May that I would make a statement about the structure of the Scottish Police Service.
I have been considering for some time whether a number of Scottish police forces should be amalgamated in the interests of efficiency, as was recommended by the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962. I have now concluded that, as a first step, there should be a limited programme of amalgamation which will reduce the total number of Scottish forces to 20, a figure envisaged by the Royal Commission on the Police.
Specifically, the amalgamations which I now propose are the forces of: the County of Lanark and the Burghs of Airdrie, Coatbridge, Hamilton, and Motherwell and Wishaw, with a total establishment at present of 1,036; the Counties of Renfrew and Bute and the Burghs of Greenock and Paisley, with an establishment of 733; the County of Ayr and the Burghs of Ayr and Kilmarnock, with an establishment of 626; the County of Inverness and the Burgh of Inverness, with an establishment of 186; and the Counties of Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, with an establishment of 102.
I have written to the police authorities concerned asking them to consider voluntary amalgamations on these lines and offering discussion of the matter in detail if they wish it.
I hope that these amalgamations can be brought about by negotiation and agreement. The general principle of amalgamation is now widely accepted and I hope that the limited programme which I have announced will not give rise to any question of compulsory


powers. But it is clear to me that, if there should be a case where I am convinced, after full consideration, that amalgamation is necessary, but the police authorities concerned are unable to agree, the procedural requirements for a public inquiry should be as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962 in so far as the inquiry should be concerned only with the objections and not with the merits of the scheme itself.
I shall, therefore, introduce later today a Bill to amend Section 18(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, which will apply in Scotland the provisions relating to procedure at inquiries which now apply in England and which were recommended for both countries by the Royal Commission on the Police.

Mr. Noble: I thank the Secretary of State for making this statement today, as he promised. I am certain that both sides of the House welcome anything which will lead to greater efficiency of the police. I should like to ask him two specific questions. Is he satisfied that the main problems facing the police in Scotland today—of numbers, staffing, equipment and pay—will be improved by this policy of amalgamation? Is it his intention—I understand that it is the intention in England—that the police forces should remain under local authorities? If that is so, is the timing of the changes proposed the most suitable one, in view of the fact that local government reorganisation will soon be with us?

Mr. Ross: Equipment and manning will be improved under larger forces. I do not think that what we are doing is inconsistent with the findings of the Royal Commission, which is what I think the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. An examination of what is proposed will convince anyone, I am sure, that it is desirable to make these changes now. The Police Federation itself, at its last annual meeting, suggested that there should be one police force in Scotland. I believe, however, that there is still scope for local participation in and control of our police forces.

Sir M. Galpern: I welcome the proposed amalgamations in principle. However, does my right hon. Friend not think

that this would be the most convenient time to review the question of the distribution of cost between local authorities and the Exchequer of the police force?

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. Not at this time, or in relation to this statement.

Mr. Stodart: If these proposals are carried through, will they include one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, that the right of a burgh of over 50,000 inhabitants to have its own police force should go?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will probably recollect that the recommendation of the Royal Commission was that police forces should not have an establishment of under 500. Of all the police forces which I have mentioned, only one, I think, has over 200. That is Paisley, with 209. We must consider this matter from the point of view of the efficiency of the police force, rather than that of the status of burghs.

Mr. Hannan: Does my right hon. Friend recall that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his recent statement indicated that he was going a little further than the recommendations of the Commission about these amalgamations? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his proposals go far enough and are radical enough to meet the new circumstances?

Mr. Ross: I think that they go far enough at present, in view of what is happening over the Royal Commission. The recommendation of the Royal Commission was to reduce the number of police forces in Scotland to between 20 and 30, and we are meeting that point. As I have said, this is the first step. We must look at the matter in that light. This is by no means the last thing which we can do: even some of the suggestions which I have made might be improved by a recommendation from the local police authorities. I should be glad to go a little further, with their agreement.

Miss Harvie Anderson: While I welcome the statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will pay specific attention to the difficulties of housing, because the amalgamations will be greatly impeded by the general shortage of housing in Scotland and the long distances which some policemen, on transfer, may now be expected to travel?

Mr. Ross: That is a fair point. This is one of the things which I am sure that the Scottish Police Advisory Board are presently considering, with the difficulties of getting up to required establishments.

Mr. Small: Would my right hon. Friend give some idea of the time scale during which he expects voluntary agreement?

Mr. Ross: It would be wrong to lay down a time limit. The Ormidale Committee, in 1933, suggested that the number of police forces should be reduced to 13 and suggested that there should be a time limit, otherwise discussions would drag on for 20 or 30 years. Now, 33 years afterwards, we are just making what is virtually the first step. If we can get agreement, I am prepared to spare six months or so, but the time scale will be entirely related to the response of the police authorities.

Mr. MacArthur: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a rather better answer to the first question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), about staffing and equipment? Is he aware that the number of crimes and offences made known to the police in Scotland went up sharply last year, that a crime is being committed there every three and a half minutes and that the rata of detection is falling? It is not enough simply to leave this to amalgamation. Will he take active and positive steps himself to improve staffing and equipment?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman has been following these matters over a number of years, he will know that improvements have been made along these lines, but he will surely be the first to appreciate that the size of the force itself has some effect on the proper use of men, on their mobility and flexibility, on the ability of specialised forces, and on getting the best use of equipment and skilled manpower.

Mr. Russell Johnston: While associating myself with the general welcome that has been given to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask him three questions? First, since he did not give a clear answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), does he not have a rough idea of

the time scale? Secondly, is he considering any other amalgamations and, if so, would he agree that it would be better to postpone their announcement until such time as experience has shown the results of those already announced? Thirdly, will he say whether he is considering, in examining these amalgamations, questions like the overlapping of communications?

Mr. Ross: It is because we are considering the question of overlapping that we have made this the first step. When I used the words "first step" I really meant what I said.
As to the time scale, we will have a better idea of how quickly we will be able to proceed when I have received the responses of the police authorities, to whom I have already written and who, I think, will not waste time in responding. As to further progress, the Scottish Police Advisory Board is meeting fairly soon, and the question of amalgamations is one of the matters that it will be discussing.

Mr. Hector Hughes: What relations will exist between those areas which are amalgamated—those which my right hon. Friend specifically mentioned—and those which are not amalgamated? Will there be some kind of supervision or central control?

Mr. Ross: They are under the supervision of the Secretary of State, but the responsibility rests with the police authorities themselves. There is scope, within existing legislation, for cooperation. My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, when considering the matter of co-operation, that crime squads are already co-operating. For example, one covers the West of Scotland from Glasgow to Galloway and Lanarkshire; in the East similarly there are such squads; and active consideration has been given to a scheme covering the Perth and Dundee area. There is full co-operation, but that is quite outwith, and additional to, what is being done here.

Mr. Wylie: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to satisfy himself as to the merits of his proposed amalgamations if the merits of them are precluded from consideration at the public inquiry, as I understand will be the case?

Mr. Ross: I am quite satisfied that, in this instance, we are bringing Scottish law up to the demands of inquiries in the way incorporated in the legislation of 1964. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member at that time, but he was Solicitor-General for Scotland and I am sure that he will be satisfied that what was being done by the Government of which he was a member was legal.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why it was felt right to lay down a time scale in respect of police amalgamations in England and Wales, but it has not been felt right to do so for Scotland? Would he give the Scottish Police Federation an assurance that he will consult closely with its members in the procedure of these amalgamations and will bear in mind the need for a co-operative spirit when it comes to negotiating pay and conditions later in the year?

Mr. Ross: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reply to the last part of that question. We are always duly co-operative on these matters. We always have close consultation in Scotland, and one reason why we do not need to lay down time scales is probably because of the close and, shall I say, harmonious nature of the contacts that exist between the various authorities in Scotland and the Secretary of State.

Mr. Noble: Is he aware that his answers will be as satisfactory as those of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if he has carefully considered the problems of compensation for chief constables who may lose their jobs for no other reason than these amalgamations?

Mr. Ross: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made that point. I have looked into it and I am satisfied that the 1956 Consolidation Act and the conditions covering compensation are quite adequate in this matter.

HOUSE OF KEYS, ISLE OF MAN (MR. SPEAKER'S VISIT)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement.
The House was good enough to grant me leave of absence to attend the ceremonial sitting of Tynwald in the Isle of

Man yesterday, to mark the centenary of the democratically elected House of Keys.
Yesterday, with other Speakers, I attended Tynwald, meeting in the open air in accordance with the ancient custom of the Manx Parliament. Nothing could have been more warmhearted and hospitable than the way in which the Isle of Man marked this notable centenary of its famous Parliamentary institution.
I know that the House will wish me to extend to the Government of the Isle of Man, and, in particular, to my fellow Speaker of the House of Keys, the most cordial thanks for the way in which I was received during these ceremonies, not in my own name but as representative of this honourable House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

EMERGENCY POWERS (REVOCATION)

Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:

Her Majesty, by Proclamation dated 22nd June 1966, having declared that the stoppage of work among merchant seamen did, in her opinion, constitute a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964:

And it having appeared to Her Majesty that the state of emergency has now ceased to exist:

Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated 5th July 1966, to proclaim that the said Proclamation of 22nd June 1966 is revoked.

Message to be considered Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]

BILL PRESENTED

POLICE (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend section 18(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1956, presented by Mr. William Ross; supported by Mr. George Willis; read the First time: to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

HOUSE OF LORDS (ABOLITION OF DELAYING POWERS)

3.47 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to deprive the House of Lords of any power to delay the passage of any public bill.
This is the second time that I have sought leave to introduce such a Bill. The first occasion was on 4th May last year, when the arguments that I used were obviously so convincing that I was given the unanimous permission of the House to introduce the Bill. The general arguments I used are as valid today as they were then, and I therefore do not propose to repeat them.
The particular case I have quoted in aid, namely, the behaviour of the other place on the Burmah oil issue, is not strictly relevant today, though I am hound to say that my well-known respect for the other place received a nasty jolt as a result of that squalid episode in our Parliamentary history. The House will recall that, in the event, the Lords did not push their opposition on that occasion to extreme lengths. In their wisdom, they deeded that the Burmah oil issue was not a very good one on which to fight a General Election, and I think that they were probably right.
Since last May many things on the political scene have changed. We now have a radical, Socialist, modernizing Government—[HON, MEMBERS: "Oh."] At least, that is what I think we have got. The Government are committed to steel nationalisation, a measure of land nationalisation, leasehold reform, the establishment of new public enterprises—particularly in development areas—to dealing with public schools in a radical, Socialist way, an extension of the activities of the existing nationalised industries, some measure of public ownership of the docks, a radical change in the shipbuilding industry and its structure and last, but not quite least, a Measure to deal with the House of Lords.
By the use of its existing powers, the House of Lords can, at the moment, delay far at least a year any or all of those Measures I have enumerated but, in addition to that, the Selective Employment Payments Bill could be declared by

you, Mr. Speaker, to be not a Money Bill. If that were to happen, inordinate delay could be indulged in by the other place. if that Bill were not to get the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, the tax could not be imposed in September, and the Government would then be very greatly embarrassed and the will of this House would be thwarted. That such a situation is even remotely possible I find thoroughly repugnant.
I recall the steel nationalisation Bill of 1949, for which the then Labour Government had a massive mandate from the people. The other place spent a total of 55 hours debating that Bill—stretching over the six months from 24th May to 24th November—[An HON. MEMBER: "Very conscientious."] It is true that, in the end, the other place did not vote against the Bill, but it effectively delayed the Bill's progress to the Statute Book.
When one comes forward to 1963—

Mr. Peter Tapsell: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member will learn that he should not intervene when leave is being sought under the Ten-Minute Rule Procedure.
We come now to the 1953 denationalisation Measure, introduced by another Government. On that Bill, the Lords spent, not six months but 18¾ hours, spread over five weeks—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Jolly good Tories!

Mr. Hamilton: —recommending a Measure on which the party opposite had a very narrow mandate; certainly a much narrower mandate than we had in 1945. The other place spent a total of 4½ hours on the Third Reading of the 1949 Bill—and 25 minutes on the Third Reading of the denationalisation Measure in 1953.
I should like to cite as another example the Tory Rent Bill of 1957—I think the most vicious class legislation that ever was passed, for which the Tory Party had no mandate whatever. There was no mention of it in the Conservative Party's 1955 manifesto. Yet the House of Lords passed that Bill in just four sittings spread over 19 hours.
It might, of course, be argued—indeed, it is—that recently the other place has undergone a transformation. In fact, it could not have been less dramatic if all


those sitting there had changed their sex. Almost overnight it has been transformed, we are led to believe, from a hot-bed of reaction to a crucible of revolution. The peers have voted to be televised—ear trumpets and all. For my part, I wholeheartedly approve—no one would believe it until he had seen it. They have accepted all kinds of social reforms, from homosexuality to abortion, and law reform to capital punishment—all done in the lifetime of a Labour Government.
Only on Monday of this week they had a debate on the reform of their own procedure, and there was an article in the Daily Telegraph—which is one of the most cunning, satirical pieces I have read for a long time. It quoted, with evident approval, Lord Slim's remark—incidentally, in the Burmah Oil Company debate—that the Lords was the
… last defence for some of our most cherished.. liberties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 264, c. 768.]
Nothing has sharpened the reforming zeal of the other place more than the prospect of several years of a Labour Government. In my view, it is not so much reforming zeal as the instinct of self-preservation that has jostled their Lordships into these paths.
Recent debates on the matters I have just mentioned confirm my view that many of those in the other place still believe in what the Duke of Northumberland said during the Second Reading debate on the 1911 Parliament Bill. The Duke of Northumberland then said:
We represent, my Lords, in a peculiar degree the education and the intelligence of the country. I am not afraid to make that assumption …
He went on:
Not only that, but it"—
that is to say, the other place—

represents in a peculiar way the property, the wealth, of the country … we have no right to give up our powers … you did not seek the position which you occupy. It has been conferred upon you by Providence …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th May, 1911; Vol. 8, c. 810.]
If it is so, that makes me an atheist.
I apologise for the miserable modesty of the Bill I seek leave to introduce. I know that it does not deal with the composition or functions of the other place—that particular meat is now too strong for my party and, as the House well knows, I am a strong party loyalist. I therefore respectfully ask this House now to toe my party line.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Wilson, Mr. Brown—[Laughter.] Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Shin-well, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. Paul Rose, Mr. Hamling, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Floud and myself, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member would not be out of order if he mentioned the Christian names.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. Paul B. Rose, Mr. William Hamling, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Jack Ashley, and Mr. Bernard Floud.

HOUSE OF LORDS (ABOLITION OF DELAYING POWERS)

Bill to deprive the House of Lords of any power to delay the passage of any public Bill, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (CONDUCT)

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Chairman of Ways and Means, having selected for simultaneous discussion 16 Amendments numbered 34, 147, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 161, 175, 220, 361, and 73, of Clause 42 of (IC Finance Bill, failed to ensure adequate discussion of this Clause, which raises £1,100 million of taxation, by accepting a Motion for the Closure of Debate when a large number of Members still wished to speak during the sitting of Wednesday 29th June, thus infringing the rights of minorities.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would I be right in assuming that it would be convenient for the House to deal, at the same tine as it deals with the Motion just moved by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), with the Motion dealing with the same subject which I have on the Order Paper, appearing as item No. 23?

[That this House congratulates the Chairmen of Ways and Means on the manner in which he has exercised his discretion to accept Motions for the Closure of Debate, and considers that he was especially justified in accepting the Motion on 29th June in view of the difficulties Members had during the same week of June in securing time for debates in the House and in Committee on matters of paramount international importance and urgency.]

Mr. Speaker: I think that, in view of the terms of that Motion, it is inevitable that it will be discussed in connection with this Motion.

Mr. Macleod: These Motions are very infrequent, but not, of course, unprecedented, and the House normally treats them gravely and leaves them fairly swiftly. There have been about half a dozen since the war, and they have come equally from both sides of the House. The most recent cases refer to the acceptance of the Closure, and as what is now our Standing Order No. 31 governs this question, perhaps I could read the first paragraph to the House. It is called "Closure of Debate" and it says:
After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move,

'That the question be now put,' and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such Motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, 'That the question be now put,' shall be put forwith, and decided without amendment or debate.
It is, of course, on the words about the abuse of the rights of the minority that this Motion, and virtually all previous Motions, has been linked.
The most recent Motion of this sort to come before the House was that concerning Sir Gordon Touche, on 13th February, 1961. I shall make some reference in the course of my speech to that debate. It was moved in an admirable speech by Hugh Gaitskell and I should like to adopt and adapt two of his comments. Having quoted that Standing Order, he went on to say:
It is, in effect, because we believe that the acceptance of the Closure Motion by the Chairman on the occasion to which I have referred was an infringement of the rights of the minority in this House that we have felt obliged to put down the Motion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1029.]
You, Sir, as Speaker, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, are normally the last court of appeal in these matters, subject, of course, to the final voice of the House itself. Naturally, the Closure is an essential part of our procedure, otherwise the power of the Opposition to obstruct business would be far too formidable. There are occasions when the Closure comes as a welcome conclusion—especially sometimes to Government supporters—of a debate, but it is always an infringement, even if a necessary one, of the rights of Members of this House and, therefore, the House, through the Standing Order which I have quoted, guards jealously its use.
As in so many cases, although the final complaint I am coming to lies in our view against the Chairman, the original complaint is in the handling of Government business itself. It is not only—the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) referred to this in another context a moment ago—that the programme is now hopelessly overloaded. We have far more than we can digest even by sitting absurdly long hours. Much of this, of course, comes from the fact that because of the General Election the Budget was a month later than usual. It would have been sensible, therefore, to have


recovered the time by having a Budget which could have passed fairly swiftly. Instead, we have the Selective Employment Tax.
We have, in effect, two Finance Bills, the one we have been considering and which, presumably, we shall conclude on Report in a few days' time, and the Ministry of Labour Bill, which has had its Second Reading, but is still to come before the House in Committee. It is not the fault of the Opposition that there are, in effect, two Finance Bills this year, nor can their rights to detailed criticism be thwarted because of this.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not the fault of the Opposition. Does he not realise that the obstructive and unnecessarily long and irrelevant speeches made by the Opposition during the Committee on the Finance Bill unnecessarily took time which could have been used for a variety of other business?

Mr. Macleod: I do not recall the hon. and learned Member being present during the long debates to which he has referred. I should be grateful if I could be allowed to proceed with my argument. Certainly, it cannot be the responsibility of the Opposition that there was this misjudgment about the Selective Employment Tax. Certainly, this has led to the largest postbag I have ever had in my time in this House—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, at any time, so far as I am concerned, and I speak only for myself. This has led to an attempt to force the Finance Bill, and especially Clause 42, which is now Clause 44 in the reprinted Bill, through the House by the use of the Closure.
We believe that in two instances, and it is the second which forms the subject of this Motion, in accepting the Closure, the Chairman was at fault and in breach of the Standing Order in agreeing to the Government's attempts to hurry on at all costs.
The Leader of the House has said that seven days is an average for a Committee stage on the Finance Bill. I think that he will agree that that is a meaningless phrase. Sometimes it takes one day and sometimes, as last year, it may take

20. This year we spent two full days on the errors of last year's Bill. What is quite clear is that we cannot weigh a Clause or a Bill by its size. Clause 44, which has led to this debate, is comparatively short—Clause 44 in the reprinted Bill and Clause 42 in the Committee. There is no disagreement on that. It is comparatively short and clear, but it is, of course, itself the whole of the Budget.
This Clause raises £1,133 million in taxation by deeply controversial measures and another Bill deals with the refund. The two Bills were not ready together. That is one of the difficulties there have been before the House. To give a comparison, we spent nearly a whole day debating a betting tax, although that is largely agreed, to raise £11 million. This Clause raises more than a hundred times as much and we spent only two days, although they were very extended indeed, on it. To this Clause the Official Opposition Front Bench tabled only four Amendments. We could scarcely have been more modest than that. One of these was not called. Another dealt with a legal point which was disposed of swiftly. So there were only two which we asked to be discussed.
The first was to bring together the dates of the two Bills so that, first, the interest-free loan element would disappear, and, secondly, we would have time to put right what we thought were apparent flaws both in the drafting and in the intention of the two Measures. After an excellent debate which the Chancellor will remember, that was disposed of. Then we came to the Amendment which has led to this debate. The Chairman selected Amendment No. 34, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, plus 16 other Amendments. Indeed, he selected 21 other Amendments because there were five Amendments to the Schedule which we were discussing as numbered 73 on the Notice Paper.
None of these, or very few of them, were consequential. They were all on different points and I protested privately and on the Floor of the Committee, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT in col. 1824, about this grouping. The usual phrase was omitted—not surprisingly perhaps, on this occasion—"It may be for the convenience of the Committee". It


clearly was not for the convenience of the Committee and a number of my hon. Friends joined in this protest. We were overruled and the debate opened.
The actual debate continued for seven hours and eight minutes. That seems a long time until one looks at it more closely. In fact, it was no more than 20 minutes per Amendment. There were 28 speeches made, 13 from these benches, 13 from the Socialist benches, and two from the Liberal benches, this being the only occasion when—obviously is entirely in their rights—hon. Members on the Government benches spoke in force on this matter. Normally, of course, the pattern of debate is something of a dialogue between the Opposition and the Treasury Bench with occasional interventions from some o' our hon. Friends or the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and others; but the pattern of dialogue remains unaltered.
On this occasion—as I said, this is absolutely beyond criticism—hon. Members on the Government side spoke until we came to the Motion for the Closure, one for one, with this side of the Committee. We say that that is something which should have been taken into account by the Chief Whip when he moved the Closure, and even more so by the Chairman, who is our guardian in these mutters, when he considered whether to accept the Closure or not. The Financial Secretary spoke for 50 minutes. The three longest speeches came from the Labour benches. I ask the House to remember the wording of the Standing Order. The opposition had no more than nine minutes per Amendment.
I want to come swiftly to what happened at the end of the debate. I will just say of the debate itself, as anyone who heard it will testify to and as any body who has read the OFFICIAL REPORT of it would agree, that it was one of the best and most moving debates I have heard in the House of Commons. It was an excellent debate at all times. If there was any repetition, it was repetition on the question of part-timers, to which I have already referred.
The time came, at 10.40 p.m., when the Government had run out of their back bench speakers. Then, without considering the convenience of the rest of the Committee, they at once began prepara-

tions to end the debate, even though perhaps 10 Members on this side still wanted to speak. I do not blame the Government very much for trying this on, but in my submission it is clear from the facts I have given that the Chairman was wrong to accept the Motion.
The Financial Secretary, who was courteous throughout, sent me a note saying that he proposed to rise. This was immediately after the last speaker from his side of the Committee had sat down. I asked the Financial Secretary not to, pointing out that many of my hon. Friends had been here for about 7½ hours: but the Financial Secretary still rose to speak. I put a point of order to the Deputy Chairman. I appealed to the Financial Secretary to speak again, if necessary, and give an undertaking that he would answer the debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman's answer was.
"I give no undertakings at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1946.] The Financial Secretary was polite, but he was clearly under orders.
Then we had to rely upon the Chair. In our view, the Chairman failed us. We were already convinced that the proceedings on the Finance Bill were being squeezed and that the programme was being squeezed so that time could be found for debates, not on Vietnam, because this was coming anyway, but on such matters as steel nationalisation or the Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill.
What was needed from this side to complete that debate was about two hours—not more than that. Hon. Members opposite, whatever their enthusiasm may be, say, for steel nationalisation, will understand that we find it irritating and think it in breach of the Standing Order that we should have been constricted in that manner so that other matters irrelevant to that particular social service debate could come forward.
One of the difficulties of a Closure Motion, as the Chief Whip, whom I very sincerely congratulate on his new appointment, will know, is that the gallows is always knocked together in sight of the condemned men, who know that there is no possibility of a reprieve. One sees the P.P.S. moving backwards and forwards along the bench. One sees—I have done it in my time—[Laughter.]
Of course. One has the various consultations. Then the moment comes when the Chief Whip strolls casually into the Chamber and finally, when the Chairman slips into his seat, the Closure is moved. One knows that the Closure is about to take place.
One more speech was allowed from this side after the Financial Secretary had spoken, for form's sake. One urgent appeal was made by the Liberal Chief Whip that at least one speaker should be allowed to an Amendment to which up to that time no one had spoken. This was done. Then, at 11.58, the Closure was moved and accepted.
It is not easy from HANSARD—very few hon. Members opposite were here at the time—to resurrect the scene that followed. In the pages of HANSARD uproar is often simply described as "Interruption". It is very hard to know exactly the depth of feeling that was aroused. Some importance should be given to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), seated and covered—he is abroad now on business—gave notice—I direct hon. Members' attention to c. 1968—that he would move the sort of Motion which I now put before the House.
I want to make it clear that I had no knowledge of this; indeed, I did not discover it until some time afterwards. I myself had moved into the No Lobby both to oppose the Closure Motion and to consult. On returning, I gave notice—I direct attention to c. 1973—which has led to this debate. I gave one instance which I can repeat now. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), who had been Economic Secretary to the Treasury and who had put his name to a key Amendment concerning medical contractual schemes, was among those on this side who had sat for over seven hours waiting in vain for the chance to speak. I emphasise that no one, apart from hon. Members on this side, was excluded by the Closure Motion.
Right up to the end of the debate entirely new points were still being raised. Entirely new points were raised in the very last speech made before the Financial Secretary spoke, as, indeed, the Financial Secretary immediately acknowledged. The speech which

immediately preceded the Financial Secretary's was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers).
This was not the first time on Clause 42, as it then was, that we had found ourselves in serious conflict with the Chair. There was a disastrous earlier intervention by the First Secretary when he entered the Chamber and ordered the then Deputy Chief Whip to move the Closure, although only two Members wanted to speak. Then, in vast excitement, the First Secretary led his troops into the wrong Lobby on that proposal.
When we returned from that I moved to report Progress. I said:
… if the Opposition feel that their rights are being abused we will not hesitate to put such a Motion"—
that is, to criticise the conduct of the Chair, —
on the Order Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June. 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1411.]
Notice of this had already been given some little time before.
I want to speak briefly and come fairly swiftly to my conclusion. Amendment No. 34 was taken with 21 other Amendments. They related to the disabled, the blind, the deaf, the part-time, and to the elderly; to education, to health, and to the arts. Indeed, they were half a dozen Supply days in one. It is intolerable that the Closure should be applied when Opposition speakers, as I have shown, had had so little time to debate these, the most important of all the measures concerning the Selective Employment Tax.
So we bring the Motion before the House for exactly the same reason as that mentioned by Hugh Gaitskell in the speech to which I have referred:
… we stand up not only for ourselves as the present Opposition, but for all future Oppositions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1036.]
Hugh Gaitskell was basically on a very similar point.
I am very grateful for the way the House has listened patiently to me. I have only a few short points to make. First, I wish to establish that the tabling of this Motion, although I was angry at the time, was not done just as a retort to a Ruling that we disliked. It was the culmination of a series of dissatisfied


complaints. This had been going on since the beginning of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. At the end, I had written on the selection of new Clauses formally to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Secondly, I had protested, both privately and in the Committee, about the grouping around Amendment No. 34. Thirdly, with others I objected to the Closure arranged by the First Secretary of State. I gave a clear indication then of the course we would take.
Fourthly, the usual channels, which have a ceaseless intelligence in these matters, were very well aware of the dissatisfaction that there was on this side of the Committee. Then my hon. Friend moved entirely independently of myself such a Motion, and finally, although we drew up the Motion at once, we decided to wait a day before tabling it so that those who had not been present could have an opportunity of hearing us and deciding whether we should put it down.
How should this debate end? In all these Motions to which I have referred this side of the House—or perhaps I should say the Conservative Party, because sometimes we are on different sides of the House—has never voted in these matters and I would not advise them to vote today. I am bound to say that in considering this I have given a great deal of weight to the very last words used by the First Secretary of State, then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the Gordon Touche debate. He ended with these words, at c. 1070:
We must, therefore, mark the fact that from here on we would not have confidence in him by dividing the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1070.]
Nobody who heard that had any doubt what it meant. That, in fact, was a notice to quit and anybody who likes to read through that debate, as I have read it through, can see how implacably that was carried out. Those who have a taste for political irony may see who took part in that particular hunt at the time.
I think that the logic of a vote, even if one is in a large minority—because the figures were much the same in 1961—would be that the Chairman would in due course probably leave, as Sir Gordon Touche did shortly after that debate. I would rather quote a phrase from a

similar debate when Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, said on 21st June, 1951:
One may be unfairly treated just as much by an error of judgment as by want of good faith or malice. We do not impute malice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 739]
I would like to adopt those words in their entirety. I have made no personal reflection whatever upon the present Chairman of Ways and Means, apart from my reflection on his judgment.
I am sure that the House, and especially the Leader of the House, will not mistake the moderation of the language that I have tried to use in putting forward this Motion for an absence of deep feeling on the injustice to which we feel we were subjected and which led us to put this Motion on the Order Paper.
I could in due course ask for this Motion to be allowed to be negatived by the House. I remember the previous Minister of Public Building and Works, the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), in the last similar debate, saying that he thought that that course was wrong and that if one did not intend to vote one should ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. With respect, I think that he was right and I would propose to follow that advice.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, at an appropriate moment—and that can be as briefly as the House wishes—and without making a second speech, I shall in due course seek leave to withdraw the Motion.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: As one who was present on the occasion in question, I am able, in the words of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod), to resurrect the scene. It seems to me that the task which the Israelites had of making bricks without straw was not more difficult than the task of the Opposition of making this so-called censure Motion credible to the House.
It is a very mild censure Motion, and I do not think it is really worth the time of the House discussing it. What does it say?—that the Opposition regret that the Chairman of Ways and Means accepted the Closure. That is not unusual. Oppositions usually do regret that the Chairman accepts the Closure, and


very often they protest about it vocally. But it is not very usual to put a Motion of censure on the Order Paper. It occasionally happens, but there should be better grounds than there are in this case.
Incidents are not unknown on the Finance Bill, and I suppose they will continue so long as we continue to have this annual ritual on the Floor of the House—this Parliamentary equivalent of the spring tribal dance.
The Committee stage of a Bill really should be for close examination of detail, and not a free-for-all so that as many hon. Members as possible can get their names in the local Press. On this particular occasion 47 right hon. and hon. Members got their names in HANSARD, many of them on a great number of occasions. Then when the right hon. Member for Enfield, West moved to report Progress most of them had another go, and another five Members also took part.
What is the crime of which the Chairman of Ways and Means is accused? It is that after 7½ hours of debate he accepted the Closure. But any Chairman of Ways and Means under those circumstances would have accepted the Closure, and the Opposition know it. Whether the Chairman of Ways and Means had been a Conservative, a Labour Member or a Liberal, he would have accepted the Closure under those conditions.
If a mistake was made, perhaps the mistake was in allowing so many Amendments to be discussed together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—wait till I have finished—which generally leads to discursive and ragged debates. Perhaps the solution is that the Chairman should be less generous in the selection of Amendments. Is that the solution which the Opposition want? In any case, even allowing for simultaneous discussion of a large number of Amendments, the debate had continued for a longer period than the normal Parliamentary day, and I cannot see, under those circumstances, that there should be any censure upon the Chairman for accepting the Closure.
The Opposition really cannot sustain the argument that during the course of the Finance Bill they were gagged either by the Government or by the Chairman.
I should like to mention that we are now spending about twice as long as we were spending on Finance Bills before 1950. On the occasion which we are now debating generous time was allowed for debates and our Front Bench spokesmen answered meticulously every debate. I wished at times that the Treasury Ministers had remembered the Italian proverb, "It is a good answer which knows when to stop".
If the Opposition Front Bench had no opportunity to reply to the debate, it was entirely their own fault. They must have realised—and I think that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West has admitted this—that the debate could not go on interminably. An hour and a half before the Closure was put, the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal that it should not be put. Therefore, the Opposition had been expecting it for quite a long time. On at least two occasions when we expected Front Bench spokesmen to rise they allowed hon. Members behind them to speak, and from the nods which I noticed it was evident that that would continue. Under those circumstances, they were not surprised when the Closure was moved.
The Chairman was right to accept the Closure after such a lengthy debate, and no amount of indignation can alter that fact. If any censure is needed for the events of that night, it is not upon the Chairman of Ways and Means, but upon those hon. Members opposite who were on their feet shouting at him after the Question had been put. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was a shocking display not worthy of this House. I thank God that television cameras were not present.
The Opposition are ill-advised to call attention today to the events of that night. I suppose that after the speech which the right hon. Member for Enfield, West made in the moment of anger on that night they had to bring forward a Motion of censure of some kind. But they would now be well-advised to allow their halfhearted protest to die a natural death.
I was very pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to put the Motion to the vote.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), is suggesting that


the terms in which the Motion is put on the Order Paper make it unreal, must have forgotten the terms in which previous Motions of this type have been put. As far as I can remember, it has the exact wording used in a Motion made by the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell. The scene in the House that led to the incident preceding that Motion was far more disgraceful.
I was very glad to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as one who was concerned in the second of the two Closures mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends are right in setting this Motion on the Order Paper, but I am also glad that it is not being pressed too far, to a Division.
I think that all concerned—the new Government Chief Whip, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the Chairman of Ways and Means himself—were to some extent the victims of circumstances which the Government have created outside the House, as well as in Parliament, by their arbitrary and erratic progress from crisis to crisis and by the evil effects of what has been called "instant government".
The Chairman of Ways and Means has an extra responsibility; it is easier for him to commit the sin of omission, and the consequences of his doing so are worse. He has the responsibility of getting through Government business, but not at the expense of the rights of the House, especially in matters such as those which we were then discussing, which touched so closely on so many people.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would my hon. Friend not expect, from the argument which he is putting, that the Government Chief Whip would be present, because he is very much a party to this, and I should have thought that he ought to have been in his place?

Mr. Macmillan: In view of the amount of time which was spent by the then Deputy Government Chief Whip, compared to the then Government Chief Whip, in the course of that long night's sitting, perhaps he might he excused this afternoon.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has a special duty—and I speak as a back

bencher—of protecting all minorities—especially when the Government are behaving in a way which, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, is arbitrary and ungenerous to the House. Perhaps, in criticising his judgment, as the Motion does, I should make the point that it is all the more important for him to resist such pressures as the Government may put on him and for him to act as the champion of the back benches and of the minority.
My complaint is not so much that the Opposition were unheard, although Clause 42, and Amendment 34 in particular, contained much of the kernel of the Finance Bill and the Budget. It is more that special points of view and representations were not fairly or fully heard, even in the course of the long debate.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested that one method of solving the problem was to limit not only the extent of the discussion, but the number of points discussed, the number of Amendments that were chosen. That is a very odd suggestion when one thinks how many close personal interests were affected by the matters discussed under Amendment No. 34 and the Amendments taken with it, and how intimately the tax concerns every individual indirectly, and more than the usual number directly. Many of those who are most concerned are in the most vulnerable position personally, and are least able to speak for themselves, or to put pressure on the Government.
That is why I am so concerned. I do not think that my views are so valuable that I have any particular right to be heard, despite my right hon. Friend's suggestion that ex-Treasury Ministers have a kind of right to be considered as honorary Privy Councillors for Finance Bill purposes. I am, on the whole, far too lazy to sit here for seven hours and more simply to put my own point of view.
But I had a special point to make on the exemption from the Selective Employment Tax of subscriptions to medical insurance schemes, which was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in an Amendment to an Amendment. That is why the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is so wrong. It was not the


Front Bench that was being suppressed. It was not the Official Opposition, that was curtailed, but rather the special plea by two back-benchers to make an addition to the items set out on the amended Schedule 3, which were put forward by our Front Bench.
That case was not adequately answered by the Financial Secretary in his general reply. I did him an injustice when I said that he failed completely to deal with the point then under discussion. That is not quite true. He dealt with it obliquely. He said that my right hon. Friend had referred to an organisation, the Hospital Savings Association, quoting it as an example of a non-registered charity. He said that one of the instances which my right hon. Friend had given was that the investment income of this organisation was taxed. The hon. and learned Gentleman continued:
I assume that if it had been able to bring itself within the legal definition of a charity it would have had an obvious economic incentive to do so. But I suppose that because its benefits were confined to its members it did not qualify."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1951.]
The whole of the top half of that column of the OFFICIAL REPORT is no reply to a closely reasoned argument setting out a claim that employees of this organisation should be exempt from tax. It was a special plea that was put forward, and it was not answered. But it would perhaps be ungenerous to deal with this point especially for myself, as the point of principle underlying it—and I am grateful to the Chair—I was allowed to make by bringing forward a new Clause which was added to those which had been selected. I should like to go on record as expressing my gratitude.
This matter is important mainly because it shows that the trouble lies deeper—that it is the attitude of the Government which is behind all this in the relationship of the Executive to the legislature and in the attitude of the Government in dealing with the citizens of this country.
Why did 50 hon. Members sit on these benches all night? Not out of a desire to obstruct right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, not out of mere petulance and certainly not because it was a demon-

stration organised by the Opposition Chief Whip. It was because of the spontaneous indignation built up over a longer period at the way in which the Government are treating Parliament and in the way at which Ministers, more and more, as hon. Members opposite have said, are sending their Parliamentary Secretaries and Under-Secretaries here to deal with the House.
Apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer is muttering that my speech sounds like a motion of censure on the Government. If so, it is because, as I have said at the beginning, this situation is the fault of the Government and because we are not attributing malice or anything more than lack of judgment to the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means. As my right hon. Friend said, our view is shared widely in the country. I have had more correspondence on this subject than on any other.
To me, the importance of and justification for this Motion lies not in the fact that we on these benches were prevented from speaking, but in the fact that representations which had been made to us by our constituents and by interests and individuals throughout the country were not heard in the House, and in the fact that he on whom we had relied for protection gave way to the pressure of the Government to get their business which, as we all know, is overcrowded. That is the purpose of the Motion.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) concluded his speech in terms of great moderation even to the extent of saying that he and his party would not press the Motion to a Division. I am certainly not suggesting that there is anything improper in hon. Members proposing Motions which they do not wish to press to a Division, for that is a customary process on quite a number of occasions, and it meets the convenience of the House to be able to state views on a general matter and not to have to vote upon it at the end. I well see that there may be occasions on which it is right to resort to such a practice in moving a Motion of censure—because that, after all, is what this is, despite our view that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not worthy of a Motion of censure. It


may be right in such cases as this—and it has been done on previous occasions—for Motions of this character to be put down and then not pressed to a vote.
What I suggest to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that it is unfair to use a debate of this nature, which purports to be an attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means, in order to launch a general censure of the Government. There are plenty of facilities open to the Opposition and to anyone else who wishes to criticise the Government. We can all find occasion for that and, what is more, provocation. But it is quite unfair on the Chairman of Ways and Means, when nine-tenths of the case which the right hon. Gentleman made out is directed against the Minister, to use that to batter the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Has the hon. Member not studied the previous occasion when the Motion was moved by the present First Secretary of State? The right hon. Gentleman then said that the real criminal—I quote his exact words from memory—was the Government. Does not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) realise that almost always the Government of the day are primarily to blame for feelings of resentment among the Opposition? Is it not a fact that it is just on such an occasion that the real qualities of a Chairman come out? At any rate, that is what the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell said, and that is what we think.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have a chance a little later to polish up the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. He made a rather more formidable case in those few minutes than did his right hon. Friend in a much longer time. Everyone to his own taste, but I have never accepted the First Secretary as a model of Parliamentary demeanour. It may be that right hon. hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they should always tread in his footsteps, and that wherever he goes they must follow, but I am a more independent character than that, and while the Opposition may follow my right hon. Friend in his Parliamentary course, I prefer to choose my own path.

Mr. Hogg: Thank heavens.

Mr. Foot: I am hoping to convince even hon. Members opposite. But I was saying, seriously, that this procedure is quite unfair, when the purpose, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman now admits quite openly and without any attempt at concealment, is to attack the Government, because in the process what they injure is the position of the Chair, and I say that that is a very dangerous course, whatever the precedents may be for it. Nine-tenths of the speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West was directed to attack not the Chairman of Ways and Means at all but Ministers.

Mr. Hogg: So it was with Hugh Gaitskell.

Mr. Foot: I doubt very much whether it was in the proportion of nine-tenths on that occasion. Even if it were, Mr. Gaitskell was never my model, either. What I am discussing is whether it is proper for the instrument of a Motion of censure of the Chairman of Ways and Means to be used when what the Opposition intend is an attack on the Government. If that process is used and if it becomes the practice, whatever may have been the unfortunate precedent; and if every time the Opposition wish to pursue an attack, where they have been defeated or wished to say more, by following it up with a Motion of censure on the Chair, we shall bring the conduct of the House into very great difficulties.
At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman attacked the Government for the way in which they had organised business. He went on to attack the First Secretary for what he had done in an intervention in a previous debate. That had nothing to do with the Chairman of Ways and Means. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that the real cause of the trouble was the attitude of the Government. This is a most unfair method to use to attack the Chairman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone mutters away about it. If he wants to attack the Chairman let him get up and say so.

Mr. Hogg: What I said was that this is when a good Chairman is most needed—when the Government are being oppressive and dictatorial.

Mr. Foot: I think that Chairman of Ways and Means is one of the offices to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not aspire.
These are the facts of the matter and it is an important precedent that most of the argument so far has been concerned with matters which have nothing to do with the conduct of business.
Now we come to the question of the night itself, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West, quite properly said that he had some difficulty in resurrecting. He was pushed into it. And he was pushed into it by, of all people, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) who, I am not surprised to see, has not had the face to show up at all. It is a very sad decline when the Opposition are led into battle by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk, great though our admiration for him is. We are told that we have "instant Government". If he becomes Leader of the Opposition we are not going to have "instant Opposition"—we are going to have a kind of elongated Opposition.
What happened was that the hon. Member for Ormskirk—and I was here watching everything that went on, with my usual care—started the protests, and if ever there was a factitious indignation that was it. It was taken up, with great hilarity by a few hon. Gentlemen on the back benches, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and others, who set up a kind of hon. and right hon. cackle, saying "Let us have some fun and kick up a row." One could have knocked them down with a feather when they looked down and saw that the right hon. Gentleman was taking them seriously.
When they saw that a Motion was going to be put down they were struck dumb. The real explanation of the whole of this affair is concerned much more with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West rather than with any misdemeanour of my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means. The right hon. Gentleman has a habit of going along very skilfully for quite a long while and everyone thinks that he is doing fine; everyone admires his skill and his debating power. Everyone thinks that he is going to continue for a long

time and then suddenly he makes a crashing error. We have seen this throughout the whole of his political life. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman, or one of the troubles, is that he can never tell the difference between a bandwagon and a sinking ship—and no one can say that it is not for want of trying. We have seen the right hon. Gentleman sweeping the Treasury Bench with the fire of his irrepressible green-eyed ambition, and he thought that this occasion might be a further opportunity for another massive attack, because of the events of that night.
It has fallen rather flat and t would be most ill-advised of right hon. Gentlemen to proceed with the idea that they can use the machinery of Parliament for furthering their purposes. They will only injure the instrument of Parliament if they do it, so they should act with great care. Most hon. Gentlemen who have been in this House for a long time would have been dumbfounded if the Chairman of Ways and Means had not accepted the Closure on that occasion.
Certainly those of us who have experience of these matters and have had many Closures moved upon us, would have been very surprised if that had not occurred. Moreover, although I realise that this is a technical argument, in a sense the Chairman of Ways and Means who accepts the Closure is not thereby saying that the debate is closed. He gives the House the decision as to whether the debate is closed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is true. On quite a number of occasions I have voted against a Closure moved by my own party, and I dare say that occasions might occur in the future and I am just staking my claim and making quite clear how legitimate it is, but it is a fact. It is a further illustration of the fact that it is most unwise for the Opposition, or anyone else in this House, to try to divert the animosities that they may have against one another against the Chair.
There is a further over-riding reason why, in my opinion it was perfectly proper for the Chairman to accept the Closure on that occasion and I have indicated it in the Motion which I have placed on the Order Paper. We are having a debate of two to three hours about the procedures of this House, and


hon. Gentlemen opposite, by insisting, as they have the right to do as an Opposition, that prominent Parliamentary time should be given to this discussion, are suggesting that acceptance of the Closure by the Chairman of Ways and Means on that occasion was a monstrous interference with the right of Members of Parliament. There are many more monstrous interferences with the rights of Members of Parliament; there are many more injustices inflicted upon back benchers of both sides than the acceptance of Closures by the Chairman of Ways and Means in such conditions.
We had an example last week, which is the reason why I have incorporated it in my Motion. A far more serious offence against the rights of Members of Parliament was the suggestion then that we should be denied the right to have n early debate upon Vietnam. I am very glad that we are going to get it, and we are going to get it because we used our Parliamentary rights in order to press for it. If that had been denied then it would have been a much more serious denial than was caused by the Chairman's acceptance of the Closure. But there are many other matters which vie wish to have debated on both sides of the House. One can see the Early Day Motions on the Order Paper.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was protesting a minute ago because by hon. Friend was referring to something outside the narrow confines of this Motion. What is the hon. Gentleman himself doing now?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the procedure. If he had been here at the beginning of this debate—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was.

Mr. Foot: —he would have heard Mr. Speaker say that it would be better for the Motion which I have placed on the Order Paper to be discussed at the same time. The latter part of my Motion says that the Chairman of Ways and Means:
… was especially justified in accepting the Motion on 29th June in view of the difficulties Members had during the same week of June in securing time for debates in the House and

in Committee on matters of paramount international importance and urgency.
Since that is part of the matter which we are discussing, clearly, whether hon. Gentlemen agree with what I am saying or not, what I am saying is in order.
I am in favour of the procedures of this House being reorganised, in order that we should be able to debate many more matters of urgent national and international importance on dates when they are much more topical. This should be done and could easily be done. When I was placed on the Select Committee on Procedure we unfortunately got into a bog, from which I tried to extract hon. Members, in discussing the whole question of whether we should have Select Committees of the House as substitutes for reforming the House of Commons. This is a distraction from real reform. It is a distraction from real reform when the Opposition use their time to say that a grievous wrong has been done because of the way in which a Closure is being operated on the Finance Bill. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) that the Finance Bill Committee stages should be upstairs and then we would be able to discuss much more of these important matters.
I hope that, not as a result of the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman, but as a result of the Motion which I and my hon. Friends have put down, we will be able to urge upon the Government that one of the most essential things that they should do to restore the reputation of this House, and its capacity to deal with immediate and urgent subjects, is to examine the operation of Standing Order No. 9. It should be considered by the Select Committee and recommendations made with the utmost urgency. I suggest that the Committee should report within a matter of three or four weeks at the maximum. Let us get to a situation in which we have to have many more debates on urgent topics and time will have to be provided for them; time will have to come from somewhere.
Therefore, as I am always reasonable and wish to make sure that, in putting forward positive suggestions, I make further suggestions which make them acceptable, we must oppose the absurd suggestion of the Opposition that we should criticise the Chairman of Ways


and Means for exercising perfectly properly the rights which Parliament has properly given to him.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Providing that a clear majority of the House expresses approval of the Motion on the Order Paper dealing with Standing Order No. 9, is it necessary for it to go to the Select Committee? Should not an immediate decision be made by the Government?

Mr. Foot: Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Motion on the Order Paper about Standing Order No. 9, good though it may be and an improvement on the present position, would remedy the situation in anything like the drastic manner which I desire. Therefore, I hope that we shall not be fobbed off by this minor proposed reform.
I want to see a system whereby almost every week we would have the opportunity, if 40 or 60 Members wish it, of pressing matters of urgent importance. Then we should be discussing on the Floor of the House topics of major interest to the country. The House of Commons would much better serve its interests by discussing my Motion on the Order Paper than the Motion so fruitlessly brought forward by the Opposition.

5.2 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I shall certainly not attempt to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). When he speaks in the House he interests us tremendously. He gets in everything that he wants to say, but criticises my right hon. and hon. Friends for doing exactly the same thing.
It is very difficult for any back-bench Member to take part in this debate. But I thought that as a reasonably old Member of the House I might be permitted to give my ideas about the circumstances of the Closure moved on that fateful night. What worried me was that the situation seemed to be organised. I watched the closure situation develop with great interest, not only on the occasions so admirably referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), but practically throughout the night. I did not very much care for it. I say genuinely and honestly, even though I am not always the most co

operative of Members, that it is very difficult for a newly appointed Chairman of Ways and Means to see exactly how the situation affects back-bench Members.
It was different when my party was in power; that I can assert. Perhaps we made our position plain in not so obvious a way. On the occasion we are discussing, I watched the appropriate Whip enter the Chamber. There were groans from this side of the Chamber. I never remember that in the days when we were in office. It was then done much more sub rosa.
A number of members of the Treasury Bench marched in like a lot of penguins, probably a dozen or 18 of them. They did not come in one by one. The art of good government is sometimes to hide what one is trying to do. Those Government members could not have gathered together at the same time by accident. They must have known that the time for the application of the Closure was very near. They all sat down, and before long the Whip moved the Closure. I am not saying that the Chairman was aware of this, but, having a suspicious nature, I thought, "This is very peculiar". We all knew when the Closure would be moved.
When there is what I call an organised arrangement it does not give the Chairman of Ways and Means an opportunity of deciding whether there has been sufficient debate on an Amendment or a Clause. He cannot know how many Members want to speak. He could not know on this occasion whether all the points so admirably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) had been properly discussed. What I was worried about was the way in which the Government operated against the constitution of the House. It is the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means to protect the interests of minorities.
I will not get into the position of being attacked by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who always makes very penetrating observations and knows how to build up his case. I cannot remember with absolute certainty how long he sat in the Chamber that night. If my memory is accurate, I do not think that he saw the scene which I saw.

Mr. Michael Foot: I saw it all.

Dame Irene Ward: No. The hon. 'Gentleman was not here all those hours of the night. I will not be put off by that. I know how easy it is to be put off, because nobody can prove anything. I cannot prove, when the hon. Gentleman was discussing with his party, all the things in which he is interested. The hon. Gentleman cannot tell me when I went out to get my Ovaltine. Therefore, E do not believe that he saw the organised scene in the same way in which I saw it. It is maddening to any hon. Member to have the Closure moved.
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in wanting to debate Vietnam, but I am equally right to want to debate the questions which I wish to raise on the Floor of the House. If I may say so with great respect, it is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide what is important in the national interest. I am not sure that his ideas are always any more acceptable to the House as a whole than, perhaps, mine. I think that it is arrogance on his part, and I thought that his speech was arrogant.
It is an extremely difficult situation when a Closure Motion has to be put. We all recognise that it irritates Members who have sat for hours waiting to make their case when the Government decide that they want to move the closure. I always feel sorry for any Chairman of Ways and Means when he is faced with this sort of situation, just as I felt sorry for the Chairman of Ways and Means of my own party, Sir Gordon Touche, whose position was spoken of so admirably by my right hon. Friend.
But I was absolutely staggered at the inadequacy of the Treasury Bench, daring o an occasion like that to give the impression of an organised arrangement at a specific moment. I accept that the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to be there, but all the others, all the Lords in Waiting, had no idea what had been going on in the Chamber. They had no idea of the important points which my hon. Friends wanted to raise or had raised. I am familiar enough with the ways of government to know that hon. Members opposite who used to be so vocal when in opposition had been silenced by their Whips. We all know that. Everyone on the Government side was sitting silent. Then all the Lords in Waiting

tripped in and sat down, having no idea what had been going on. They had no idea of the issues involved or how deeply so many of us felt on the points we wanted to make. They gave this impression of an organised arrangement, as I say, and they were treating the Chairman of Ways and Means very badly. His position is a difficult one, and they were not making it any easier.
I shall not say any more—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear" if they like, but they would be better advised not to do so, because I can go on talking for an hour. I am glad that my right hon. Friend does not propose to press this matter to a Division, but I give this warning to the Government. We shall have many difficult issues to discuss in this Parliament. Although it may be appalling to realise that I have been in the House of Commons longer than most of those who sit on the Treasury Bench, I must put it to them that, if they want to make the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means tolerable, they must learn better how to arrange for the moving of the Closure.
When we were the Government, we often asked our Whips if we could have the Closure—all hon. Members want to get home—but the answer was always very straightly put to us, that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not accept it. On such occasions, one would see all sorts of to-ings and fro-ings and, quite often, the Closure was refused.
My objection to what happened last week is this: I do not believe that the Closure Motion was ever refused by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government have no idea how vital it is for them to be able to do their business with decency and with adequate support from those who have these difficult decisions to take.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has added to our bewilderment because it seems that she has spoken to a Motion of sympathy for the Chairman of Ways and Means and of censure upon my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I hope that I shall be excused if I do not follow her with an original Motion of my own.
I suppose that no one on either side of the House can quite equal the record of enthusiastic and brilliantly articulate oppositionism of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. If there was one point in his speech on which I did not follow him, it was in supposing that the Chairman, by accepting the Closure Motion, does not decide the matter which we are discussing this afternoon. It is precisely the question of whether the majority of the House shall exercise the power of the majority to end the debate which is in the Chairman's power, and it is the exercise of that very power which we are discussing. So that a temperate Motion by an Opposition to criticise the Chair for an error of judgment in accepting the Closure when he did—on this or any occasion—would be perfectly respectable and, indeed, even desirable in certain circumstances because it is the only way by which an Opposition can, within our rules of order, express their doubts, displeasure or anxiety in respect of the premature application of the Closure about which hon. Members complain.
We must never forget that the Opposition are the custodians of the rights not only of the present Opposition but of all future Oppositions. I hope to extend considerable sympathy and admiration to the present Opposition in their exercise of that exalted function for quite a long time to come.
Unfortunately, this debate, although opened with great moderation by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), has turned into an attempt to use the Chairman of Ways and Means as a sort of battering ram against the Government. I respectfully submit that this is a most dangerous and deplorable proceeding. If there is a complaint that the Chairman prematurely exercised the right to put the Closure, that complaint should be fairly, honourably and squarely directed against the Chairman of Ways and Means, and no Opposition can be justified in skulking behind an attack on the Government in making this sort of improper attack on the Chair. If there is any criticism to be made of the Chairman, it must be that he exercised his judgment wrongly and unfairly, not protecting the rights of the minority—which I absolutely agree it was his bounden duty to do.
If we look at this matter with any impartiality, we are obliged to look at some of the circumstances surrounding the putting of the Closure that night, the background to it, so to speak. Was this a ruthless Chancellor riding unfeelingly over the wishes of the House in Committee to debate matters before it, or had the Chancellor and his team shown an adequate respect for the House? It ought to be recorded at this point, in view of the remarks which have been made, that the Chancellor and his team have shown a respect for the Committee which I have never seen exceeded in all my membership of the House. My right hon. Friend sat through long hours of tedious debate on detail and showed to the maximum his respect for the Committee and its argument. This ought to be taken into account.
What of the Chairman himself? Were we submitted to a constant display of bias and irrascibility by the Chairman of Ways and Means? Not at all. It would be impossible to fault the even-tempered impartiality which he displayed throughout the debate. This ought to be borne in mind, too, in deciding our approach to the question of his acceptance of the Closure Motion on that occasion. I would say—and I am not altogether unfamiliar with our rules of order—that, far from any sign of bias or ill temper, he showed lenient good nature in interpreting our rules so as to allow the widest possible debate.
As for the Chancellor, the Treasury team and the Government Whips, it should be added that, not especially on the particular Clause in question but in general, throughout our proceedings on the Finance Bill, they have exerted a continuous encouragement to the taciturnity of Government back benchers which I have rarely seen excelled, and I can only suppose that this was undertaken in order to extend opportunities for discussion to hon. Members opposite. The Opposition cannot complain on that score either.
It should also be borne in mind that our rules do not proceed from some kind of refined impracticable intellectuality, but from experience, common sense and fair play, and although the Opposition have got their rights, the Government have got to get to their business.


I listened to almost all of the debate on the Bill. I must make a confession, that there was no intermittent Ovaltine, such as the hon. Lady had, about my absences, but I was present at that scene and during a good deal of the debate. I must say that I am quite satisfied that in exercising the discretion he did, the Chairman was performing his duties with strict honour and impartiality, and in a matter which cannot be complained of. I think it is unjust to use the Chairman's use of his discretion on that occasion in the way it has been used today as a means of attack upon the Government.
I must add another word to the Gordon Touche reference which has been made. I cannot myself help feeling—I hope somebody on the other side of the House will utterly disavow this—that there is something of a game of tit-for-tat involved involved here, because the Opposition, in certain circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am glad to hear that this is disavowed by the Opposition, and I readily accept that they so disavow it, because if we were, each side in turn, to start on some such unworthy and impracticable practice of assailing a Chairman drawn from the other side, for a sort of revenge for what had gone before, we should bring both sides of the House into the deepest disrepute. I am glad to hear that the Opposition have no such thing in mind.
With reference to the comments by my hon. Fr end the Member for Ebbw Vale on overloading, the answer is not, as was implied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West, that the Government should curtail their Parliamentary programme, or still less that we should have even fewer occasions for debating matters of urgent public importance. The answer to the overloading of the programme is some intelligent and moderate reform of our Parliamentary system along the lines which were indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), although I would not go with him at all in suggesting that these long and tedious debates are to be regarded with suspicion or as merely vehicles for making hon. Members' names known through local newspapers.
I hold the view that these long and tedious debates are a vital and necessary part of our Parliamentary function in

protecting Parliament and the people from the dangers of suppression and blunder by Government, and I make no apology for having participated in them fairly frequently. That does not mean to say that there are no better ways of covering the large areas of activity than we have at present.
The answer about the Closure, too, is this, that so long as Parliament is unreformed the use of the Closure is sometimes a protection of the rights of minorities on other matters than those being discussed at the time of the Closure, because there are other minorities waiting to be heard on other subjects, and if we do not have the Closure and some reasonable use of the Closure, we simply squeeze those minorities out of opportunities to speak on those subjects which are as urgently important to them as certain aspects of the Selective Employment Tax are to certain Members opposite.
I would conclude by saying that one aspect of the debate which has given me very great gratification is that the honour and impartiality of the Chairman of Ways and Means throughout that debate and at all times has never been under challenge by a single Member on either side of the House. I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, as we would expect from him, made it quite plain that this was the position, and I hope, in these circumstances, that when the Motion is withdrawn it will be well understood that the honour of the Chairman of Ways and Means is absolutely untouched and, indeed, that he enjoys the respect and authority which are necessary to him in the very arduous duties he is called upon to perform.

5.24 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I think that any of us who love this House and its traditions find any debate of this sort rather distasteful, and I think that the only good thing which came out of the Gordon Touche debate which has been referred to was that at least in the last Parliament we did not have a repetition of those circumstances. Therefore, I hope that from this debate we shall learn so that we do not have a repetition of it in the years ahead in this Parliament.
I intervene in this debate only because for a long time I was a Government Whip, and the Whip dealing with the


passage of three Finance Bills, and working under three different Chancellors. I then gained a great deal of experience, and it seemed to me that there has to be a great deal of good will in conducting our affairs—most particularly, it seemed to me—in Committee on a Finance Bill, which we take in the summer, when it is hot, and when tempers get a little frayed. To get it through there must be good will between the Chancellor of the day and the "shadow" Chancellor.
The Opposition know perfectly well that the Government are going to get their Bill, but if the Chancellor is wise—and I have seen three different Chancellors exercising their different skills in how to do this—the Chancellor gives the Opposition plenty of time on the matters on which the Opposition feel very keenly, and then he gets the good will of the Opposition to go quickly through other Amendments on which they do not feel so strongly.
On that particular lot of Amendments which were taken together, my right hon. and hon Friends did feel extremely strongly. How was it that in that case the Government felt they could get their business through only by applying the Closure? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has said, another two hours would have been sufficient for hon. Members on this side.
What is meant by the Standing Order? Surely, that the rights of minorities should be protected. If it means anything it means that the minorities have at least an equal, if not a greater, share of the debate. There is nothing said about the majority on the Government side having a share of the debate. Time after time, when I sat on the Treasury Bench, I have seen the Patronage Secretary of the day go round to Government supporters, as we were then, saying, "Please do not speak, or if you do, only very shortly, so as to give the minority on the other side more time."
On this occasion the present Patronage Secretary, who was in charge on that evening, so far as I know, made no effort—

Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. and gallant Member is pursuing a false point.

The purpose is to give the critics more time. When the critics are on the Government side then it is in nobody's interest that they should be suppressed. I think that in this case the hon. and gallant Member's point is a false one, because it was the critics of the Government on this side who also were closured.

Sir H. Harrison: The hon. Member really reinforces my point, because there is a case for saying that it is the critics upon the Government's side who are more important than the critics on the Opposition side.
I know perfectly well that the Chief Whip of the day has in the past often gone to the Chair and asked whether the Chair would or would not accept a Closure Motion, and has been told, "No. You have got to give sufficent time for this debate." I thought the Government seemed reluctant to do that. I know they were in great difficulty, because I do not think Governments make a great deal of progress after about 2 o'clock in the early hours, and it is far wiser to give an extra day for a debate and to make arrangements accordingly with the Opposition.
Having said that, I now come back to the question of the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means. We have here a system by which we can judge whether people are competent to preside over our affairs, and that is through the Speaker's Panel. This is the means by which Members on both sides, Government and Opposition, get experience both in Standing Committees upstairs and on the Floor of the House in chairing our Committees, and by which other Members can form a judgment on how their fellow Members manage in the Chair. In the last Parliament the Government of the day were quite happy to draw as they felt fit on Members of the Opposition to fill those posts. In those posts an hon. Member gains a great deal of experience of Committees before becoming Chairman of Ways and Means.
It went through my mind at the beginning of this Parliament, when we had lost the previous Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman in the hurly-burly of the General Election, that there were very many hon. Members on the Government side who had proved


themselves to be good Chairmen of Committees, and I expected to see them promoted. There were, for example, the two hon. Members opposite who have spoken this afternoon, the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). But, no. The Government put down in their Motion the names of two other hon. Members, both of whom personally are very popular in the House but who had no experience of the Chair and who had been Ministers, rather than back benchers.
Usually, of course, we expect to have Chairmen selected from amongst the back benchers, who know the frustrations that many of us go through. But, in their wisdom, the Government put down a Motion nominating the present Chairman of Ways and Means and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We accepted it, of course, but it occurred to me to wonder whether, because of lack of experience of being in the Chair at difficult times, we might not run into problems.
I believe that the present situation is entirely due to the inexperience of the Chairman of Ways and Means of being in the Chair. If today's debate has done nothing else, it may have freed our debates for the future, because the Chairman of Ways and Means, or whoever else sits in the Chair and presides over our deliberations, must never put himself in the position of being accused of being the tool of the Government of the day. He is the servant of the House of Commons.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: The last two speakers from the other side have been remarkably charitable in different ways. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) has given an extraordinarily charitable interpretation of that phenomenon which we all know, of the Whips going round unostentatiously persuading people on the Government side either not to speak at all or not to speak at undue length. I had never realised that that was because the Whips wanted to allow the maximum time to Opposition speakers and critics of the Government. I am delighted to hear it.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has a charitably selective memory. I can assure her that, when we were on that side, the spectacle which she has described—the to-ings and fro-ings and the organised preparation for the Closure—looked exactly the same to us as it looked to her the other night. It was just as obvious, and everyone knew what was coming. As the hon. and gallant Member for Eye said, everyone knows that quite often the Chief Whip will go to the Chairman and will be told, "No, you cannot move it yet. I cannot accept it yet." That happens, whatever Government are in power.
Except for the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and others of my hon. Friends, the debate has been, especially in view of the last words of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), strictly a non-debate. It has been almost a complete waste of time—but not a complete waste of time, because of the speeches of my hon. Friends and also because we have been able to assess some of the sheer humbug and hypocrisy underlying the Motion.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the show away himself, in a moment of candour, when he referred to P.P.S.s scurrying to and fro, and said "I have done it myself in my time, as we all have". It is a case of what used to be called the ins and the outs: the party which is in moves the Closure, and the party which is out shouts "Gag". The same thing happens whatever Government are in power.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye repeated something that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West said, that only two more hours would have been needed the other night. However, the right hon. Gentleman read out a long and formidable list of important subjects which he claimed had not been dealt with adequately. Two hours—perhaps six or eight speeches: I do not think that would have been enough to cover all those subjects. If the Closure had been moved two hours later, there would still have been the same cries of "Gag" and the same angry scene.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is likely that there would not have been a Motion


if the debate had continued for the extra two hours.

Mr. Driberg: That is very unlikely. If there were all those subjects still to discuss, it may well have been that a number of hon. Members would have picked on the same subject, and several subjects would have reminded not adequately covered in the view of the right hon. Gentleman. There would still have been the necessity for the Closure to be moved. It is a matter of opinion, anyway—and it is hypothetically retrospective, and not worth going into.
I have referred to the angry scene, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted in his speech that he was angry on that occasion. I would put it a little more crudely and say that he lost his temper. I was listening to what he said on that occasion, and I was watching his conduct. In my opinion, this ought to be a Motion of censure on his behaviour, rather than on the conduct of the Chair. He was extraordinarily rude to the Chair. His shout of, "I know the rules as well as you do" was insulting. There was none of the slightly hypocritical "flannel" in which we wrap our arguments with the Chair. If I may use a school-boyish word which is also appropriate, the right hon. Gentleman was distinctly cheeky, and he should have apologised for his behaviour.
I see that the Motion is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, though he has not bothered to attend the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was here."] If he was, I apologise. I have been here the whole time, and I had not realised that the right hon. Gentleman was present. He must have been here for a very short time. At any rate, he has left it to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, who no doubt felt that he had to speak to the Motion in order—uneasily perhaps—to excuse his extraordinary and unparliamentary behaviour and his sheer bad manners.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: As a signatory to the Motion, I hope that the House will permit me to make one or two short observations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said in

the course of his remarks in moving the Motion that we were very angry that night. I must readily admit to the House that very few people were more angry than I. Inasmuch as I might have offended the House or the Chairman of Ways and Means in anything that I said, I apologise personally for it. But I still say that there was absolute justification for the anger that was felt.
Reference has been made to the earlier episode in which the Closure was moved, when I personally happened to be concerned. I have been concerned in a very large number of Amendments on the particuar Clause, as those hon. Members who have followed our debates on the Finance Bill know. I was cut out of the debate although I had my name to several Amendments.
I found that rather distressing, although I did not say very much about it at the time. I did, however, have a feeling of sympathy for other hon. Members when the Chair accepted the Motion for the Closure. I had been fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair on that occasion, so I have no personal grumbles on that score, but I knew only too well that several of my hon. Friends had extremely important points to put. To my knowledge some of them had sat here solidly for some hours, and I suggest that this should have been known, or could have been ascertained through the usual channels, and the information made known to the Government. I am surprised that the Chairman of Ways and Means was not apprised of the situation by the Clerks of the Table or by those who watch our proceedings, or did not see it for himself.
I support my right hon. Friend when he says that a couple of hours would, in all probability, have saved the situation. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is wrong in his interpretation of what would have happened. One knows what happens on these occasions, especially when people are a little angry as a result of earlier closures. We were not happy about the operation of the Chair in this matter, and I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) has a point—but I shall not pursue it as I have not his personal experience—when he says that there was some lack of experience in this matter.
We on this side of the Committee were very angry. Many of my hon. Friends rose to speak on that occasion, and anyone who had been following the debate would have realised that there was a great deal of interest in it. The Chief Whip, or the Deputy Chief Whip, should have been paying attention to the debate in order to give the correct guidance to the Government. The Chair, too, should have appreciated the situation.
In the past I have often been involved in this sort of thing, because I am a hit of a stormy petrel. Time and again I have seen the Chief Whip come into the Chamber, perhaps an hour or an hour and a half before any step was taken, to get the tone of the debate, and to sense the atmosphere of it and the position of the speakers, following which he advised the Leader of the House or the Minister in charge of the Bill as to the best step to take.
That was not done on this occasion. The first that we knew was when the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) came into the Chamber like a bull rushing into a china shop and pressed the Front Bench into a premature Closure. The Deputy Chief Whip came in and only a little bit of the debate was allowed afterwards. No appreciation was taken of the fact that some hon. Members had been sitting here solidly for hours. About four of my hon. Friends, one of whom was sitting next to me, had been here the whole evening. I know this to be true because I hardly left the Chamber at all. In particular, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) sat here solidly the whole evening. He did not leave even for a cup of tea or Ovaltine, or a meal of any kind. He did not even go out to get a biscuit.
Ever since I have been in this House, on whichever side I have sat, I have in my humble way been a great protector of the individual rights of Members. Both inside the Chamber and outside, in Committee and elsewhere, I have fought for Members' rights. I have fought my own side over this, and nothing incenses me more than to see those rights sat on in this House, and I admit that I was angry that night. I do not dispute that I was furiously angry, and that I expressed myself rather more strongly than

I think is respectable in this Chamber. This is why, in the hearing of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I expressed an apology. I hope that I shall always be good enough to do that when it is necessary.
I was very angry, and I had an especially good reason for my anger, because I took part in the points of order which were raised at the beginning of the proceedings on 29th June. This was at about half past four, when my right hon Friend the Member for Enfield, West spoke as he has done today about the order of business. My right hon. Friend said that it was not to the convenience of the House to discuss in one debate so many Amendments carrying in the aggregate a vast number of supporting signatures. The Chair drew rather a peculiar distinction between who signed the Amendments. We disputed this at the time, because I take the view that all right hon. and hon. Members are equal in this House, and that equal attention should be paid to their desires to press Amendments. The only distinction is that the Chair has the right of selection.
We drew attention to the fact that it was not for the convenience of the House to take so many Amendments together. I shall spare the House a recital of the points of order, because they occupy two and a half columns of HANSARD, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the point raised was a substantial one. Having got what seemed to be a reasonable answer, I thanked the Chairman of Ways and Means for it but,—and I do not mean to be personal, or rude—I was a little premature in so doing, but I felt that we were getting somewhere.
Following that, however, I had second thoughts, the sort of instinct that one gets after taking part in these debates. I had a fear, born of personal experience, that things would go wrong. I drew attention during those points of order to the previous happenings, because I foresaw the same sort of thing happening again. I also drew attention to what might well be the result of taking so many Amendments together on so important a Clause as Clause 42 as it then was, and 44 as it is now.
We know that whichever side is operating the Finance Bill, it is inevitable that perhaps one Clause represents the hones


of it. Perhaps on occasion two Clauses contain the bones of a Finance Bill. It is rarely more than that. Last year two Clauses were of vital importance, and this year the bones of the Bill are in one Clause, the one which deals with the Selective Employment Tax.
This tax is the whole theme, the whole bones, of this Finance Bill. The Bill of course contains other Clauses in which we are interested, and to which we object—in fact I object to everything in the Bill except the first sentence—but the fact is that the bones of the Bill are in this Clause. The Government knew it, and, with respect, naturally the Chair knew it.
This was the item which was going to cause all the difficulty, because it is by this Clause that this astronomical sum is to be raised. I know that some of this money is to be paid back in peculiar ways, but the fact is that by this Clause the Government will raise £1,100 million, and it was the duty of the Opposition to conduct the most searching inquiry into the provisions of this Clause and how it would operate. I have no doubt that had hon. Gentlemen opposite been on tense benches, they too, would have subjected this tax to the most searching inquiry.
When it was decided to take 16 principle Amendments together, I had an instinct that there was going to be trouble, and I was right. I had a feeling that there was going to be trouble, because there was obviously going to be a big debate, and in such circumstances it is very difficult for this sort of situation not to arise. One cannot judge this in hours. In some circumstances two and a half hours can be far too long for a debate. I might want to spread it to three hours, but I would not be justified in doing so. Sometimes half an hour can be too long. But on this occasion we were to discuss the bones of the Finance Bill. The country is concerned about this tax. This cannot be judged in hours. It can be judged only by the Government, and, indeed, by the Chair, taking into account the need of hon. Members to do their duty to their constituents, and this is why we feel it right to bring this matter to the attention of the House.
In an additional point of order I raised another matter. I submitted to the Chairman that
it would be a very serious matter for the rights of the Opposition if by reason of the Chair
the moving of the Closure did not permit adequate discussion. I said that at 4.45 in the afternoon, before the discussion started. That was anticipating the very situation which later arose.
I went on to say that I hoped that we could have an assurance from the Chair that we would not be put on the spot. That was intended to be a friendly probe to the Chair, to make sure that we would have full opportunity to discuss the fundamental point of the Bill. The Chairman kindly replied:
I do not think that the hon. Member ought to imagine for one moment that the Chair is unconscious of the fact that a number of Amendments are grouped together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1830.]
I naturally did not expect to get an assurance from the Chair that under no circumstances would the Closure be accepted; that would have been ridiculous. I did not expect to get any undertaking, because I know that the Chair would not give such a thing. But at that time I was satisfied—and by the sound of the voices from this side of the House my hon. Friends agreed with me—that I had made my point and that the Chair had indicated that it was conscious of that point and was seeking to show that my fears about the dangerous possibilities were unnecessary.
The fact that the point that I made was not fully accepted in that sense by the Chair occasioned the trouble which has been the root of the whole matter. I do not mean anything personal—the right hon. Gentleman in question knows that—but I feel that this is a serious matter. I agree with the line adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. I support him in all that he said; I support him completely on the action that he has taken, and I deprecate the remarks made by the hon. Member for Barking that there has been any humbug from this side. There is deep feeling and a sense of responsibility. I remember past occasions when hon. Members opposite, when on these benches, took an attitude


similar to that which we are now adopting on points about which they felt very sincerely but which were not necessarily accepted by everybody. I see no reason why we should not be given credit for having the same degree of sincerity as we have always given them credit for, and it is in that spirit that I support the Motion.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I shall be brief. Being short of stature, I shall be short in speech. The speeches made today resemble in one respect those made on the Finance Bill. They have not always been strictly relevant and they have been unnecessarily long.
I submit that the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means, since he has occupied that position, has always been admirable and judicial in character, strictly relevant and very fair to both sides. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) gave us a bad lead by making his speech too wide, and seeking to transform it into an attack upon the Government instead of adhering strictly to the matter it hand, which was to show that the Chairman of Ways and Means was unfair in his conduct in the Chair.
Let us look back at the occasion out of which this debate arises. The Chairman of Ways and Means was confronted with a situation in which a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee had debated, ad lib, at great length, and, I suppose one might almost say, ad nauseam, certain aspects which they regarded as of importance. The Chairman had to decide whether the subject in hand had been fairly and fully debated. That was his job; that was what he was in the Chair to do. When the Closure was moved he, as a judge, had to decide whether the debate had been full and fair. He did decide, in a judicial way, that it had been full and fair, and accepted the Motion.
I do not wish to wander far—as some other speakers have done today and in the debates on the Finance Bill—so I shall content myself with supporting the Chairman of Ways and Means. His conduct has at all times been judicial and fair, and in my submission no case has been made out—certainly not by the right

hon. Member for Enfield, West, who wandered far and wide in his speech—against the Chairman of Ways and Means. Therefore, the Motion should be rejected.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has referred to his small stature. It may be for that reason that we noticed his presence on the benches opposite so infrequently during our debates on the Finance Bill.
It has been noticeable during this debate that the Government's trumpets have sounded and that four or five of their most skilled debaters have come to their aid. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) nearly achieved what must be the summit of every Parliamentarian's ambition; he almost succeeded in changing the mind of the House. If he had gone on much longer, I think that he would have been able to offset the cogent advice given by my right hon. Friend, and the House would have felt inclined—with disastrous consequences and great error of judgment—to vote on the Motion. The hon. Member cut his speech short just in time to avoid that result.
We had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). His Parliamentary performances are of great skill. To hear him today was a wonderful experience for all of us. Never did I see the robber playing "cop" with more pleasure than he showed in his own speech. He accused one of my right hon. Friends of not being able to distinguish a bandwagon from a sinking ship. To make any sort of accusation of that kind against the hon. Member would be grossly unfair, because we all know his deep predilection for sinking ships. The hon. Member would never go anywhere near a band-wagon and we all admire him for that.
The techniques of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) are most interesting. He also has great skill as a Parliamentarian, and he uses an occasion such as this, with infinite cunning, to build up some credit with his own Front Bench so that, later, he can attack it and almost exhaust that credit—although he is always very careful


to keep the balance right. He never goes so far as to exhaust entirely his credit with his own side.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) unfairly accused us of humbug. We must leave him to be the judge of humbug. I wish that time and my own modesty were not in the way of my pursuing the comparison into which he lured us between "hypocritical flannel" and "cheek". He confessed, in very charming innocence, that, in his own approaches to the Chair, in the past, he had frequently been dressed in hypocritical flannel. It is nice to know that: no one would challenge the honesty of the hon. Gentleman's description of his own attire. What would have been interesting to know from him is what precisely is the difference between addressing oneself to the Chair garbed in that way and doing so with a measure of cheek.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I was not present throughout the debate which led up to the Closure being moved on this occasion. I had earlier abandoned the hunt because there was no possibility, I believed, of the debate being conducted in a satisfactory manner, due to the fundamental error—it was no more than that—of grouping that heterogeneous collection of Amendments together. That did more to inhibit the debate than anything else.
I do not want to repeat at length the personal recollections which we all have of the various processes which lead up to the moving of the Closure. But nobody relishes the Closure, save, perhaps, that hon. Member who happens to be on his feet at the time that it becomes clear that the Closure is about to be moved. He knows that at least he will not suffer the "chopper". I was in that happy position on a previous occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chief Government Whip came into the Chamber and I compared him to a "vet" carrying with him a humane killer. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who suggested that the humane killer should be carried decently under a coat and not shown to the victim so obviously. None of us with experience can fail to realise what is to happen when the veterinary surgeon enters the

Chamber, whether or not his humane killer is concealed.
The Government and the Chairman of Ways and Means would be wholly wrong to underrate the importance which we attach to the Finance Bill and to the Clause which was under discussion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has pointed out, that Clause is really another Bill altogether, of a major kind. Many people in the country have written letters expressing the points of view of all occupations, all ages, all parties, and all kinds of people, who do not know—I do not believe that the Government know—what will be the consequences of this Measure, which will take out of the economy £100 million before anything is put back.
We believe that this has been a disastrous and ill-thought-out Measure. It is exceedingly unfortunate that, in those circumstances, the Chairman of Ways and Means should have so exercised his judgment as to curtail discussion of a tax which has been so obviously ill-thoughtout and ill-considered. Any suggestion made by the Government or from any other source that the Opposition were guilty on this occasion of fillibustering or humbug will not only be greatly resented now but will be followed by consequences which will not make the working of Parliament any easier and by consequences throughout the country, a feeling that this new and much-resented Measure has not been adequately discussed in the only place in which it can be.

6.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): During the past two hours, I have listened to criticism of the Government, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the First Secretary of State—for a speech he made five years ago—of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. We have heard very little criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means, so I am inclined to ask, why, then, was this Motion put upon the Order Paper at all?
However, it is my duty, as Leader of the House of Commons, to reply to the Motion, which purports to be critical of the Chairman of Ways and Means. In


doing so, I agree with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) that although these Motions are not without precedent they are few and far between. As part of my duty in preparing for this debate, I read back over the years some of the reports of similar debates which have taken place. In doing so, I was struck by the very wise remarks made from this Dispatch Box by Leaders of the House of different parties on this subject.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to what was said in June, 1951, by the then Mr. Chuter Ede. He said:
We have entrusted this power of selection to the Chairman. It is quite clear that, if from time to time his method of selection is to be brought before the House, it must make the position of the Chairman intolerable …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1951: Vol 489, c. 736.]
The position has not changed during the last 15 years.
The House has placed the Chairman o Ways and Means in charge of its proceedings in Committee. The House has given h m the discretion to accept or to refuse the Closure. It has given him discretion, equally, to select Amendments for debate. Obviously, the exercise of this discretion must be a very difficult task for him or anyone else entrusted with it. Equally it will give rise to disappointment, frustration, and hard feelings when hon. Members are deprived of the opportunity of making speeches, many of which have been prepared some time in advance.
However, no better way has been devised—either in this country or in any other—for mediating between the rights of the majority and those of the minority in Parliament. Rejecting the authority of the Chairman, or denying him discretion, would only lead, could only possibly lead to worse evils. If we get ourselves into the position of thinking that every speech must be made, every Amendment called, every speaker called who has his name to a particular Amendment, we shall simply put an end to Parliament as we know it. We shall not serve democratic government: we could go some way towards destroying it.
I now turn to the Motion, which sets out the charge against the Chairman of Ways and Means, that he failed to ensure

adequate discussion of Clause 42 of the Finance Bill. The Motion sets it out fairly explicitly. In accordance with the practice of the House, and to avoid repetitious debate, it is customary to take together a number of Amendments bearing on the same topic. This is clearly laid down in Erskine May which deals with the selection of Amendments. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in making his selection, does a number of things. He not only consults the hon. Members concerned, as and when he thinks fit—and it may be of interest to the House to know that he had eight such discussions on this occasion—but he also receives advice from his learned staff. However, the final decision must, of course, be his. It was as a result of such discussions on this occasion, and at the request of hon. Members of the Opposition, that it was decided to have a special debate on Amendment No. 325.
I hope that hon. Members will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the discussion which took place on Amendment No. 325. I think they will agree that it was the least useful of all the debates we have had on the Finance Bill this year. If, therefore, we add the time taken on Amendment No. 325—which was related and which the Chairman of Ways and Means was asked to take separately—and add the three hours of that to the 7 hours and 41 minutes spent on Amendment No. 34—and I am referring not to the Clause, but to the particular topic of that Amendment—we see that the discussion took well over 10 hours.
There is no formal rule at all when a Closure should be moved, and I have been looking back over the years at the precedents. I have found one remarkable one; that a Closure was accepted on one occasion after only 23 minutes. In our researches we have found no precedent for a Closure having been refused when a debate had taken as long as this one had taken. However, there is a Ruling—and I mention it only in passing; it was given by a former Chairman of Ways and Means—when the then Chairman said that he would always accept a Closure at 10 p.m. on a debate which had started at 3.30 p.m. that day, which is 61 hours. This one went on for 7 hours and 41 minutes. I do not think that it can be argued that the Closure, after 7 hours and 41 minutes—or 7 hours and


8 minutes, for the sake of argument—was accepted quickly.
If we take the debate itself, and the Amendments grouped together, we see that 27 hon. Members spoke. In calling the speakers in the debate on Amendment No. 34, it is true to say that the Chairman of Ways and Means called them one from one side and one from the other. It is equally true to say that one, and sometimes two, of the signatories to each one of the Amendments grouped with Amendment No. 34–16 in all—were called to speak. Looking at this in perspective, the House will, I hope, appeciate that the period of well over 7 hours spent on Amendment No. 34 was longer than very many Second Reading debates on the Floor of the House on major Bills.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the charge that the Closure was accepted too soon, and I stress that what the Chairman of Ways and Means did in accepting the Closure was not to end the debate on Amendment No. 34 but to give an opportunity to the Committee to decide whether a majority of the Committee wished to end the debate. This is a valid point. It is quite unfair—and this has been said—to say that the Chairman of Ways and Means ended the debate. He did not. The Committee itself decided to end the debate. The decision was in the hands of hon. Members, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) reminded us of that.
I was not present that night, but I have been careful to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of every speech and I have analysed them. I do not think that hon. Members will disagree that while many hon. Members might have wished to have spoken on that occasion and were prevented from doing so, nevertheless, every part of every Amendment tabled was covered by someone, with the exception of one point. This can be checked by any hon. Member who wishes to do so. Beyond that one point, every matter raised was answered—though perhaps not to the satisfaction of the hon. Member who raised it—by one or other of the Treasury Ministers.
The Motion regrets that the Chairman of Ways and Means
… failed to ensure adequate discussion of this Clause …".

There is some ambiguity here and there seems to be some confusion in the Motion because while the earlier part of the Motion refers to Amendment No. 34 and the Amendments grouped with it, the remaining part of it refers to the Closure of the Clause. The Closure that was moved and accepted by the Committee did not put an end to the discussion of the Clause. Therefore, if the gravamen of the charge is that not enough time was allowed for the Clause, then it is worth while my mentioning that the debate on what was then Clause 42 took exactly 33 hours and 6 minutes, roughly equivalent to a full week's debate. If one analyses it, one sees that 80 Amendments were tabled to Clause 42, now Clause 44, that 24 of them were out of order, that 56 were in order for debate and that, of those 56, 47 were selected for discussion. No one can argue that the selection of these Amendments on that Clause was in any way unfair.
In view of the gravity of a charge of this kind, I feel that I must point out that the grounds for objecting to the Chair's decision—in the words used by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West at an earlier point in the debate and which have been quoted once today
… we … have no confidence in you as Chairman of Ways and Means …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1973.]
is not reflected in the Motion before us. The Motion merely questions the decision of the Chair.
The House must be free to question specific decisions at any time, although, as I said, it should be slow and hesitant to take this extremely grave step of censuring either Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. Therefore, the Motion is quite a different matter from criticising the impartiality of the Chair. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West has made it clear, that although he spoke hastily, and in some heat, in his subsequent withdrawal that night he withdrew any suggestion of partiality. It is one thing to question the Chairman's judgment, but quite another to question his integrity in that way.
I am afraid that one cannot leave it there, because during the debate of the last two hours I heard the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) say that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave way to pressure from the


Government. I hope, on reflection, that he will agree that it was a mistake for him to say that. Perhaps he is prepared to withdraw it, because that was the most serious thing said in today's debate.
Further, I must refer to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, when he said:
… if the Opposition feel that their rights are being abused we will not hesitate to put such a Motion"—
that is, a censure Motion—
on the Order Paper".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1411.]
Technically, there is nothing improper about that remark, but I am not so sure that such remarks are in the interest of the House since they purport to be a constraint on the Chair and can be construed as a threat to the Chair. I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend this, and as there is to be a withdrawal I propose to say no more on the matter.
The attitude of Opposition Members in this context is very much in conflict with the professed desire of some of them, expressed from time to time—and I am subjected to this in the usual business question exchanges on a Thursday—that the House should modernise its proceedings. On the day in question the Committee sat continuously for 20 hours and 8 minutes. Perhaps I may express the personal view that unless the House is willing both to discipline itself and to respond to discipline imposed on it from the Chair there seems very little prospect indeed that we shall ever be able to run our affairs both efficiently and in reasonable hours.
I would be the first to pay tribute to what the former Administration did in this field. The present Opposition, when the Government, dealt with three points on which the House used to be kept up unnecessarily for very long hours. I remember that when there was a former Labour Government we were subject to Prayers right through the night—that did not necessarily mean that we were particularly devout. The former Administration ended that by bringing Prayers to an end at 11.30. As Opposition Chief Whip al the time, I agreed with this. It was a good step forward. Debates on Money Resolutions were restricted to

three-quarters of an hour—another good step forward.
Again, the old idea was that the annual debates on the Service Votes—Army, Navy and Air Force—should be taken through the night. That idea was ended. I recall that when I came here first, in 1946, newly out of the Royal Air Force, I was told by a colleague, "The Army kept the House going all night. Do not let the R.A.F. down—we must keep the House going all night." What a fantastic way to look at things. I am glad to pay tribute once more to what the former Administration did in that respect, but we have a great deal more to do, and I hope that we shall have approval in all quarters when we move in that direction.
Let me make one final remark. What is at issue is whether we are prepared to ask one of our number—a Member who, in this case, has been in the House for many years and has had very wide experience of Finance Bills—to act as our Chairman; and to accept his decisions even when they may be unpopular to any particular section of the House because we know that the decisions he has taken are honestly and fairly taken in order to protect the interests of both minorities and majorities. His task is a very difficult and a very onerous one, and we should be very careful before making charges against him or against his conduct, particularly if at any time those charge are based on allegations of partiality. If this House, and its Committees, were to show itself in all reasonable circumstances unable to accept guidance and rulings from the Chair it would be a very sorry day for us and for Parliament.
I very much hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the sponsors of the Motion, who have said that they will withdraw it, will, in fact, do so. I agree with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West that it is not sufficient to have it negatived. On reflection, I am sure that the Opposition regret having tabled it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I therefore invite the right hon. Member now to withdraw the Motion.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Although, as the mover of the Motion, I have, I think, a right to reply, I earlier abjured the intention of making a second speech, and I hold to that course. I limit myself to one


observation, perhaps, to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who honoured me with some of his most ancient and cherished jokes, and also to the Leader of the House.
I repeat my earlier comment that Members should, in connection with this debate, look up the previous debates—as the Leader of the House has done, and as I have done. They will then see that invariably a Motion of censure on the Chairman of Ways and Means—and the last four Motions have been of this nature—is also inevitably one on the conduct of business by the Government, because the Chairman only comes into it at the very moment when he either shakes his head at the Chief Whip or rises to put the Question.
If hon. Members will look back over the years they will find that invariably it is the lead-up to that which in every single instance inevitably has to be developed as comment on the Government. That explains why in this case, and in every other case, this has taken place. It was so in 1961; it was so in 1951.
When I first spoke, I said that I intended to ask the leave of this House to withdraw the Motion, and I believe that that is the right course. There has only been one vote on such a Motion since the war. That was called by the party opposite against the previous Chairman of Ways and Means, and in a very short time he left office. I prefer, as I said, the words used by Sir Winston Churchill in 1951—paraphrasing them, because I do not have them in front of me—that we suggest that there was a lack of good judgment. We do not regret in the least, therefore, that we put the Motion on the Order Paper, but we do not impute bad faith, we do not impute malice. We are perfectly content to go on sitting under the Chairman of Ways and Means in the future.
Having, as is the right of all Parliamentarians, brought this matter to the

Floor of the House, I would equally ask the House if I might have its leave to withdraw the Motion.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House chose to put a point to me personally and I should like to point out that the words he complained of—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House asked me to withdraw certain words.

Mr. Speaker: I was not interrupting the hon. Member. I was preventing him from being interrupted.

Mr. Macmillan: By leave of the House, perhaps I may refer to the speech of the Leader of the House. He quoted words of mine which appeared to impute ill faith to the Chairman of Ways and Means.
In my opening and closing remarks I specifically said that I join my right hon. Friend only in criticising the Chairman's judgment. The words I used, which I cannot now recollect, were intended, even if they did not specifically appear to do so, to convey my view that the Chairman had given too much weight to his duties as Chairman of Ways and Means in getting Government business through, and that his judgment was at fault in over-balancing that side of his duties compared with his duty of protecting the back benchers. I in no way impugned his impartiality.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I must in the present situation use my discretion. Is it your wish that the Motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

Orders of the Day — BUILDING CONTROL BILL

As amended (in the Standing Comittee), considered.

6.30 p.m.

New Clause.—(ANNUAL REPORT.)

As soon as may be after the end of March 1968 and after the end of March in each subsequent year the Minister shall prepare a report on the performance of his functions under this Act, and shall lay the report before Parliament.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
During the Committee stage of the previous Building Control Bill, and on the Second Reading of this Bill, I asked the Government whether they would be prepared to provide, for the convenience of this House, of industry and of many other people, an annual report on the workings of the Measure when it becomes an Act. The Parliamentary Secretary then declined to give any such assurance, though he did so most courteously. I hope that the Government, having now been able to consider the matter since Second Reading, and in Committee, may have found themselves able to reconsider that previous decision and to allow such an annual report to he made.
On this occasion, my hon. Friends and I have put forward a less complicated proposal than that which we put in Committee. It follows precisely the Section in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, 1965. I must confess that the case I am advancing to the House this evening would have been strengthened if we could have had the annual report under that Act in front of the House before today. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Board of Trade that it is the desire of all hon. Members that we should have that report at least by the time of the Summer Recess.
I hope that the Minister of Public Building and Works, should he be good enough to afford us an opportunity of having an annual report, will be considerably less dilatory than the President

of the Board of Trade has been in producing his report. The arguments for producing an annual report are directly relevant to the provision for an annual report under the other Act since that Act was designed to have some control over building. This Bill goes very much further. It takes powers over the whole field of building and is far wider than powers over office building. Under those circumstances, it is somewhat anomalous that at the moment it is not proposed that the Minister should make a report.
The Control of Offices and Industrial Development Act is to expire in 1972. Unless the Government—as I hope they will—see fit to accept this Clause, we shall be in the anomalous position that this Measure will be in force after 1972 when the other Act will have expired. Then we shall have the curious situation that for a period of seven years we shall have had an annual report by the Board of Trade on control of office building, but that provision which the Board will have exercised during that time will cease at the end of 1972 and control over office building will still exist because the Minister will have powers under this Measue to control it yet we shall have no annual report.
When the President of the Board of Trade told us that he would give an annual report he said—I hope the Minister will say the same—that the sort of things he would include would he the total number of office building permits approved, those rejected, and the square footage involved. I hope that if the Minister gives an annual report he will include the number of projects approved and the number rejected, and that he will divide this into areas as the President of the Board of Trade has promised to do with reference to office building. He promised to divide the information into that relating to the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan region and, I gather, we shall have a separate report on the Birmingham conurbation. I hope that the Minister, who has wider powers, will also divide his report into sections dealing with areas.
It would be of value to the House, to the building industry and to the public at large if some information could be given to us about the operation of the building licence scheme. I should like the Minister to go a great deal further than what the


President of the Board of Trade is to give us in his report on the control of office development. It would be far better, if the Minister is to give a report, to give details of reasons why he has refused licences in cases where he has done so.
In Committee, we specifically put forward a proposal that in an annual report which we hoped the Minister would make there should be some provision for giving reasons for refusal of licences. We have not included that in this Clause because we did not want to tie the hands of the Minister and to make it more difficult for him to accept the Clause. I suggest that when he is considering the matter, however, he should consider it only fair to include in the report, if at all possible, reasons for his decision in cases where he has refused a building licence.
I do not think it a wholly unfair analogy to draw to his attention what was said in the Franks Committee Report on this matter. It is not unfair to draw to his attention what happens in the case of planning appeals where the Minister makes a final decision. He makes a final decision in such cases after a public inquiry. So the citizen is far better safeguarded than he will be in cases where the Minister makes a decision without a public inquiry.
The Franks Committee stated, in paragraph 351:
There is a consensus of opinion that the final letter of decision from or on behalf of the Minister should contain full reasons for the decison. The practice of giving properly reasoned decisions has grown noticeably in recent years… It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the parties concerned in one of these procedures should know at the end of the day why the particular decision has been taken. Where no reasons are given the individual may be forgiven for concluding that he has been the victim of arbitrary decision.
The principles advanced in the Franks Committee Report are equally applicable to the information about the building licences scheme. If no other method can be found of making known the full reasons, I hope that the Minister will consider including in the annual report which I hope he will agree to give us reasons why he has refused licences in certain cases.
It may be that the Government are prepared to give us an annual report, but

are not prepared to go so far as we should like. Let us hope that if that is the position as a minimum they will concede to us the more modest request to include the number of applications authorised, those refused and those for which no reply has been given at the date when the report comes out. This would be a powerful inducement for Ministers, at least once a year, to make sure that they have cleared their files very effectively.
I must tell the House that at this early stage of the working of the licence procedure, which, so far, has not the force of law, I do not think there is any evidence of delay by the Minister. I make no charge of delay by the Minister, but it would be helpful if, in an annual report of this kind, we could be told the average time taken before a decision is reached. This would help the House to keep a check on Ministers. I do not think that the present Minister will be dilatory in making decisions of this kind. I am sure that he knows full well how important it is to the parties to make decisions speedily, but it would be a check on him and his successors if they had to publish in a report the average time taken before a decision is reached.
It would be helpful, also, to the building industry and to the House to know the Minister's intentions. They could be explained in an annual report. Perhaps he is not prepared to authorise certain kinds of work to be done with certain kinds of material. If that sort of information were to be published by his Ministry and made plain in a report to the House, it would save a great deal of planning work. In a previous debate the Parliamentary Secretary told us that he wanted to improve statistical information in the industry and he thought that was in the interests of the industry and of the Government. I am sure that he was right. I think that it would be in the interests of the House as well.
I concede that it is quite possible that more up-to-date information could be obtained by hon. Members by Question and Answers and in Adjournment debates. The difficulty about that sort of proceeding is in being able to collate the information. Although it is possible for hon. Members to wade through a whole series of Questions and Answers and replies to debates and get relevant information, it


is quite impossible to imagine members of the general public doing so and it would be unfair in the building industry. It would, therefore, be helpful to have an annual report which could collate the experience of the Minister and of his Department in the operation of the Act at least annually. I hope, therefore, at this late stage in the proceedings the Minister may be prepared to change his mind about having an annual report.
If the Minister is able to do so, I hope that he will tell us this afternoon what he will be prepared to put in the report. I am convinced that all those interested in building control would find such an annual report of value. It would be of value in the public interest. I claim that it would follow precedent which exists in a large number of Acts. I do not think it would necessarily prove burdensome to the Department. For all these reasons, and especially that of keeping the House fully informed at regular intervals about how the Act is working, I recommend to the House that we should ask the Government to produce an annual report on the way in which the Act is working.

Mr. William Roots: I strongly support the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The Bill will grant immense and autocratic powers extending over the whole country. These powers will apply to completely differing facts and considerations. Different considerations in terms of building control arise in various areas.
As it stands, one major disadvantage of the Bill is that, when enacted, the vast powers it will grant will be removed from any kind of review. No appeal procedure is provided for. There will be no control either by the House or by anyone else. No one has any rights. I strongly suspect that in many cases the Minister's successors, if not this Minister, will be equally in the dark.
The House is not only entitled but, indeed, should be obliged to know how these great but entirely restrictive powers are working. At the moment, the powers have not produced any increase in house building, which was one of the stated objects of this Measure. In fact, the rate of house building has decreased. I do not have to declare an interest, be

cause I am not in the building industry. Meantime, the essential progress of development and modernisation of many kinds of building other than house building—office building is offices is an excellent example—has been gravely impeded and the country is suffering.
It is only fair to the Minister that I should give an example. Town centre development is an intensely complex matter which needs much planning and foresight. In many cases, to my own knowledge, worth-while, valuable, large scale, schemes have been halted because they happen to contain an office element and the developers cannot discover what policy is to be followed in future. As it stands, the Bill will allow developers to gain no inkling of what policy will be followed from year to year.
The Bill does not grant the developer any right to an impartial hearing. I am not seeking to impute any wrongful motives either to this or any other Minister, but this is the fact. The developer has no right to ensure that he has been fairly treated. He has no right of redress if he has been unfairly treated. My hon. Friend adduced overwhelming arguments in support of our contention that reasons should be made known. The blame in this respect cannot be laid either on the Minister or on the Bill. The hiatus arises because, unlike many other countries, this country has no kind of administrative law making it obligatory for this to be done. My hon. Friend referred to the Report of the Franks Committee. We need to go the next step beyond Franks. Franks could not deal with the part of the subject which arises on this Bill. Although it would be extremely important and valuable for the Minister to give reasons for his various policy decisions, we need more than that.

6.45 p.m.

The Clause at least has the merit that it would take the matter a stage further. It would ensure a measure of fair treatment of the developer. It would also enable the House, first and foremost, and—equally important—the developer, to see what course was being followed. If the Bill were to become law as it stands, justice would be as long as the bureaucratic foot, to adapt a well known legal saying. I assume that bureaucracy likes to be human. To err is human.

Therefore, bureaucracy is left with the choice between being inhuman and claiming not to err or admitting itself to be human and equally admitting that it may occasionally err.

I do not want to utter any alarmist note, but some hon. Members will remember all too well the working of the old regulations and that trial which led through luncheons in expensive grill rooms to the Old Bailey. I have no doubt that it will lead there again. It is extremely unfair to put officialdom in that position. As the Bill stands, a developer can do nothing to find out what the policy is other than try to get the appropriate official by the ear and take him out to lunch. In my experience, this is a very bad practice. I hope that the Minister will recognise this and introduce or accept a suitable Amendment, because it is not fair on officials.

I recognise that the Clause is not the real solution, but it would at least enable the course of major decisions to be seen and known. This is not a sphere where secrecy is either necessary or desirable. We do not want or need a cover-up procedure. The very opposite is needed if the best results are to be obtained, both from the administrative point of view and from the point of view of the industry, upon which this country must depend for the development of houses, offices, industry and everything else. The Clause should be accepted, because it would meet a vital need, in the absence of any system of administrative law.

I can only repeat that there is no evidence that the Minister or his Department needs or should have or is known to have sought any cloak of secrecy. Far from it. An annual report would enable discussions to take place and would also provide some knowledge of past policy and, one would hope, of projected policy for the year following that to which the report applied. I hope that the Minister will accept the Clause and, in doing so, recognise that he would be giving himself and his successors a very valuable asset and not something which would be in any sense an impediment to his work.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reginald Prentice): It may be convenient to the House if I state

right away that I accept the Clause and recommend the House to add it to the Bill. I should explain that in Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I both spoke against the concept of an annual report because at that time we thought that, on balance, the argument was slightly against it. Indeed, I think we have now taken the other view because the Opposition are obviously keen on it, because, as they know, sweet reason always runs through our thinking in these matters, and we are, therefore, anxious that they should not only have all the information they want but they should feel satisfied that they are getting it in the form in which they want it.
I am not making any sort of constitutional precedent here, but this is the sort of Clause which, if the Opposition want it badly enough, the Government feel they ought to consider accepting. The only reason that we felt in Committee that the balance of argument was the other way was nothing like the sinister reason put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). It was that we felt that the amount of information which would be in the annual report would already be available in other ways to hon. Members. In other words, the annual report might be superfluous.
However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) that, nevertheless, in an annual report the information would be in a more convenient form and would avoid the necessity of people having to look back at previous debates and that kind of thing. Certainly, it has always been the Government's view that we are answerable to the House, and, of course, we want to give information to the House. Naturally, if we were to make major policy decisions affecting the type or volume of control that we were exercising, we would want to volunteer statements to the House on such matters. Of course, hon. Members can question us on the way we are operating the controls, and indeed this has already been taking place. A number of Questions have been answered on this point.
These are the reasons why we felt, on balance, that an annual report would be superfluous. But if it is to be of any


help, we are happy to concede the point. As has already been pointed out, in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act there is provision for an annual report. I am advised that there is also provision of a similar nature in the Local Employment Act, 1960, which controls the issue of I.D.C.s. These are both processes which are similar to the one in this Bill and, therefore, the parallel is one which we might reasonably follow.
As to the contents of the annual re-fort, I will consider carefully all the suggestions that have been made. I can say straight away that it would include the number of applications that have been made, the numbers that have been accepted and refused. It might also be useful to have the numbers outstanding at a particular date. I would say that those should be subdivided into regions—this is one of the suggestions that have been made today—and I would further add that they should probably be subdivided into types of application, so that the types of buildings could he separated out, and—I would have thought—the value of applications under each heading, including the value of those accepted and rejected. All this would be information which could properly be provided in a report of this kind.
On one point I do not see that I or my successors would be able to provide the information asked for, and that relates to the giving of reasons. It depends on what is meant by reasons. Clearly, the House would be entitled to know from time to time, either through the annual report or through some other medium, what were the considerations involved. It was suggested that we might be making decisions against a certain type of development because of the scarcity of a certain type of raw material. I would not want to be drawn into giving reasons for refusing individual applications. Here there is a very important distinction to be drawn between the job that we shall be doing under the Bill and the kind of decision to which the Franks Report refer red.
This brings me on to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South. We have to draw a distinction here between decisions such as planning decisions, where the Minister concerned is acting in a judicial or quasi-

judicial capacity, where people therefore obviously have a right to know the reasons for a particular decision in some detail, and the kind of administrative controls that are contained in a Bill of this kind. Broadly speaking, the reason why some applications would be refused, or why conditions would be attached, or why a developer would be told that he would have to wait some months, would arise basically from the fact that the Government were attaching a higher priority to other kinds of development than the proposed development.
Of course, my officials are prepared to discuss matters—indeed, they are already doing so in connection with the authorisations that we are operating—in some detail with people making a proposal, to give them an indication of where they stand in regard to an authorisation, and, if conditions are attached to it, the reasons for doing so. If we had to print every decision in detail, another difficulty would arise, namely that we might be giving away information which had been given to us in confidence. This is a very important point.

Mr. A. P. Costain: As a developer has to get outline planning consent before he applies for a licence, would the Minister consider giving enough information to stop abortive work on outline planning consent if it is his policy not to allow certain types of building in certain areas?

Mr. Prentice: As the hon. Gentleman says, outline planning consent would have to be obtained. The hon. Member suggests that before going through the process of asking for it, some information should be given. Of course, we would be prepared to give any information which might be helpful in that case. What has to be recognised is that there is a proper sequence of decisions. We should not give a binding decision before the planning decision had been cleared, but, certainly, preliminary advice would be given.
The hon. Member will recall that we gave undertakings that we would be prepared to give advice for some years ahead—perhaps two or three years ahead—as to the likely attitude that we would adopt towards particular applications. This is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman


was particularly keen and we gave that undertaking.
I hope that I have explained why there is a distinction between this kind of decision and quasi-judicial decisions, and the reason why we could not in an annual report or in any other published document give detailed reasons in print available for the public to read about individual applications. I hope I have covered most of the points that were put to me in relation to the report. I will study the record, and if there are others outstanding I will see what we can do to answer them.
In that spirit, I hope that the House will accept the proposed Clause.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Now that sweet reason, as the Minister has said, has at last entered the field, it would be churlish of me to do anything except thank the Government and to say one more word. We are pleased that this Clause, which was moved on behalf of the Opposition in Committee earlier, has been accepted. I am glad that the Minister is talking in terms of regional subdivision, because that will obviously be valuable.
I should like the Minister to think a little more about some of the other matters which ought to be in the report. For example, the question of materials has been raised. It has been suggested that if there were a shortage of certain materials the Minister might wish to indicate, perhaps in the report or perhaps in private correspondence between the applicant and the Ministry, that the use of another material might in future result in the granting of a licence.
Then there is the question whether at some particular moment the Minister would feel that he wished to encourage system building, or a particular system of building, in a certain area. He will no doubt want to consider whether this should be in the report, or whether it should be a subject of correspondence between himself and the applicants. We welcome this concession, and are grateful to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(TEMPORARY OPERATION OF ACT.)

Unless Parliament otherwise determines, this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of three years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
While we do not believe in the permanent provision of the Bill, we are by no means wedded to the three years that the new Clause suggests. It could well be that the Minister, with all the facts at his fingertips, will convince us that we have put forward a time scale which is unsuitable or unrealistic for one reason or another. It may well be that in those circumstances we shall settle for something somewhat different.
On the Second Reading of the original Bill, I said that I was not dogmatic about the powers for annual renewal, and I shall not be dogmatic now. We are seeking a solution that gives maximum Parliamentary control with the minimum disturbance of confidence in the industry. I recognise the importance of finding that sort of solution. No one can regard our attitude in the three-year proposal as ungenerous, because in this instance it will be a four-year period. The House does not need to be reminded that as long ago as 27th July, 1965, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Bill and it was then promised as the first Bill of the Session. It is far from being that, and the Government have found themselves operating an authorisation scheme of licensing without any authority from Parliament for a very considerable time.
It is fair to say that the handling of the Bill will go down in Parliamentary history as the most inept and unconstitutional for many years. But we are not here tonight to bully the Minister. We want not to bully him about the ugly precedent of carrying over a Dissolution power which the Government did not possess, but to make the best improvements that we can to a bad Bill and to end some of the uncertainty in the industry, which is something that the Government seem incapable of doing. Everything that they do seems to increase it.
To discuss the reasons why the Government should seek to make this a


permanent measure is to challenge its raison d'être. There was no question when the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) took office, in those happy and undivided days of 1964, of this being a permanent Measure, nor was there in July, 1965, because at both those times the Minister was still reassuring the industry that there would be no controls—not permanent controls, but no controls. However, on 27th July, the Chancellor told the House that the Bill was part of an attempt to
… reach our aim of eliminating the deficit in the course of next year and of maintaining the strength of sterling …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 228.]
That would seem, on the face of it, as almost being an argument for a temporary Bill, unless it was believed that the crisis was permanent.

The former Minister said on the 8th December, on the Second Reading of his own, now abandoned, Building Control Bill that it was permanent legislation, and was not introduced to deal only with a short-term problem. He added:
As far as I can see for all the years alead—all the researches undertaken prove this—and, despite the productivity that we hope to get from the industry, it will probably not attract enough manpower to expand at the rate that we needed in the terms of the national economy".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 439.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the construction industry was not an attractive one. We had an imaginative passage from him about the wind and the rain. He said that men over 40 looked for the inside job, and that "one therefore has wastage". All this is too true. It seems to confirm assertion that he made the other day that he knew nothing of the advent of the Selective Employment Tax before leaving office on 4th April, and that if he had known he would not have advocated permanent powers or, perhaps, the Bill at all.
By 19th May the right hon. Gentleman was quite as doubtful about the value of permanent powers as we are on this side of the House. He said then:
There is no doubt that in the conditions which existed 12 months ago, with overheating of the industry by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., the Building Control Act was justified; that is, at that time".
Later, he said:

If that Measure was justified, I doubt whether the Selective Employment Tax is justified as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1630.]
There is no praise for permanency there. I know from the record that the right hon. Gentleman—and I told him that I would mention him tonight—voted for the Selective Employment Tax. Having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's words which I quoted earlier, I imagine that we can look forward confidently to his ebullient and unrepentant presence in the Division Lobby with us tonight when we vote for the new Clause.
Why should be have permanent legislation? I know that the Parliamentary Secretary gets very uncomfortable when we remind him of certain words with which he explained the situation to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on 7th February this year. I have referred to these words before, but they must be mentioned again if we are to get anywhere near trying to unravel the complicated strands of the Government's corporate mind. After telling us that the object of the Bill was to anticipate crises—presumably created by his colleagues—the Parliamentary Secretary said of the Bill that in another economic crisis measures appropriate to the 1965 crisis would probably not be exactly what was needed.
Really, the hon. Gentleman has there made the case for us against permanency of the powers which the Minister seeks in the Bill. It is argued in favour of permanent powers that they should be reasonably long term because "starts" in construction in one year will affect the following year and the year after. This is true. We were told at different stages—we have been given so many reasons at different times that it is hard to find them all—that the purpose of the Bill was to increase housing. What has been so distressing over the last few months is the way in which the Bill has affected fields that it was never intended to affect. Those fields have suffered.
The incidence of the Bill on the construction figures, the abandonment of architects' plans and the cut-back in projects passing through surveyors' offices—all these were, perhaps, predictable. Infinitely more depressing is the effect on the level of demand and the way in which the level of demand has been reflected


on housing "starts". In the first quarter of 1966, for example, housing "starts" were 13,000 down on the first quarter of 1965.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot make a Second Reading speech on the Bill on this new Clause

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am in some difficulty here, Mr. Speaker, because the reasons for not requiring permanency are very closely related to the dislike of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. I have pointed it out to him.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I also appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I felt fairly confident that at some point you would remind me of this difficulty.
What is depressing about this is what appears to be the lack in the Ministries concerned—if there were not this lack the permanent powers would not be required—of knowledge, research, and forecasting, and this must be put right. It is easy to say that if one limits the building of office blocks, hotels, bowling alleys, and so on, one will eventually get a situation in which more houses are built. That is confidently asserted, but there is no proof of it, and I cannot think that enough research into it has been done. An article in the District Bank Review, recently, pointed out that there was no means yet of saying whether a switch from these other projects would quickly produce bottlenecks in certain materials and skills. That is something that we should know before attempting to take permanent powers of this kind.
I suspect that all these things could be discovered. We from our point of view must hope that research with the co-operation of industry is going on swiftly and to this end. Perhaps, too—this is relevant to how temporary or permanent the power should be—to avoid future expensive fiascos such as we have seen recently in respect of one basic building material which I hardly dare mention, we should be looking for a proper system of forecasting, perhaps through the medium of a scientific analysis of planning consents. This in itself might provide a reasonable predict-

tion of requirements over the next few months. Certainly, if the Minister wants to introduce this sort of Bill, with permanent powers, he should have these facts at his disposal.
When the right hon. Member for Leeds, West introduced the Bill originally, he said, among other things:
We have all seen building sites in our own constituencies undermanned or held up through lack of materials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 438.]
Undermanned the sites may have been at that time, and the Selective Employment Tax may take a further toll. Of materials, however, this much must be said. Either out of a larger-than-life human error or precisely because he had not done enough research in the way I have just suggested that in forecasting demand, for example, and, again, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was later pulling the carpet from under his feet, the former Minister went to the brick-makers and rather over-egged the pudding. We know what happened. That is another illustration of the way in which circumstances change so quickly. This is what is worrying about the permanency of this Bill.
There were a good many allusions earlier, in the course of the proceedings which have been so long drawn out on these Bills, about the shortages of labour in the construction industry. From the National Plan to various other oracles like the former Minister, like the lion. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) and the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), we have heard of these difficulties of shortages of labour. However, in spite of this, some months later the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either believing that the Bill had died, which, after the pre-election démarche, was perhaps excusable, or finding that the speeches of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West were rather an acquired taste, decided that there was something wrong with the construction industry. Presumably, he could not find what it was from the speeches which he had read, and something had to be done to cure the shortage of labour in the industry.
The Government tried to find the solution by caling in leeches, who, seeing that the industry was suffering from a loss of blood, decided that the cure was


bleeding. And so we got the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Speaker: Again, this is becoming either a Second Reading or a Third Reading speech.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My object in recalling this, Mr. Speaker, is simply to show how very fast the situation in these matters changes and why, therefore, permanent powers of the kind envisaged to be taken in the Bill are not appropriate to the situation. However, there is no need for me to dwell upon the point. It is self-evident.
If we are to have the Bill, which has now been made rather more irrelevant in its permanency by the Selective Employment Tax, it is obvious that there should be a time scale. We must therefore ask the Minister, if there was a time limit in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, why there is not one in this Measure. The question is whether the Government have changed their minds about that, or whether, as I hope is not the case, they have become more and more indoctrinated with the notion of controls for controls' sake.

7.15 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) in all that he has said on the new Clause. Many of us are indeed wedded to the belief that a temporary operation of the Bill would be in the best interests of all concerned. The reasons for this have been gone into extensively at every stage. The Government spokesmen have been far from convincing in their rejection of our proposal. As I see it, the fact remains that there is no need for a permanent Measure. I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will concede this.
As my hon. Friend has said, it was only on 27th July last year that indication was given that the Bill would be a permanent measure. I and many of my hon. Friends, and, indeed, hon. Members opposite, and certainly most of those concerned with the industry, thought that it would be a temporary measure. They were justified in so thinking because we have to remember that the reason given for it at the outset was that we were faced with a financial crisis in which the over-

heating of the industry would adversely affect the economic position. Many of us accepted that in good faith.
There is grave reason now to doubt that the improvement in the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated a year ago has come about. Indeed, we know that it has not. Therefore, I am converted to the extent of believing that it might be reasonable to have the Bill in operation for rather more than the one year which the Chancellor's statement suggested would be necessary. That is no excuse, however, for translating what many of us deemed to be a temporary Measure into a permanent one.
We hope that in three years' time the crisis which the Bill was drawn up to meet will be behind us. If we then can look forward to a financial climate in which the Bill will not be necessary on the ground that the Chancellor explained on 27th July, we are justified in putting forward the new Clause containing a restriction of time.
The restriction in the new Clause has been set at three years, but we on this side would not question too closely a variation of a year or so. It seems sensible that the restriction should have a similar time limit as was deemed necessary for the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act it seems sensible that the two Measures should run concurrently. I see no reason, however, nor has the Minister ever given one, why there should be a difference in the timing of these two Measures, because their objective is broadly the same. I agree that the objective of the Offices Bill is in some respects different, but there is a great degree of comparison possible between the two in the way of timing of control.
There therefore remains for consideration the question of control for control's sake. Unless the Minister can produce much more convincing arguments, I am reduced to the belief that the permanency of this Measure is accounted for by the fact that it is a control for control's sake. I do not want to believe this, because that sort of attitude does not do any of us any good. Having heard at first hand, however, many of the arguments which have been put forward, I can only assure the Minister that there are hundreds, indeed thousands, of people outside this House who will believe this profoundly.
For that reason also, it is in the interest of the industry to have the Bill as a temporary Measure. I hope that the Minister will accept, if not the period of three years as a limit to the control, at least a period no longer than is absolutely necessary. I warmly support the new Clause.

Mr. Costain: As is the custom of the House I will declare an interest in the building industry. I wish to support my hon. Friend in moving this new Clause. One of the objectives of the Report stage is to present to the House some of the arguments considered in Committee. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen a Report stage when there has not been a single Member on the benches opposite to hear our arguments? In spite of the fact that my hon. Friend has given notice to some of the hon. and right hon. Members, we are faced with a situation when there is the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and his Parliamentary Private Secretary present—and a Whip to see that they are here.
It makes a mockery of any speech which any of us may make, because we know that the Minister has come with his brief made out and his Parliamentary Secretary is here to support him. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) who said that the Minister was not going to accept this new Clause. From his very jovial attitude I think that he may be going to accept it, but in case he is not may I make two curt points? The first is that when the Socialist Government brought in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, 1965, they did so as a temporary measure, because they had not been in office very long. Now they have been in office a bit longer, they are even more worried about the country and are now suggesting that they should have a permanent Measure. The very admission that they want to bring in permanent control in peace time must be an admission of failure. I should have thought that the Minister would be sufficiently confident in his own ability to see that this was not necessary.
My speech is an appeal only to the Minister—there is no one else on the other side and I know that my hon. Friends will support me. My second

point is that the Minister has recently taken office and by what he has shown in his attitude to the previous new Clauses it is clear that he has studied the situation very carefully. He took this Bill when it was by no means a virgin. It had been through the Committee stage at great length. If there is to be any time control, of a semi-permanent nature then I would suggest that the experience of some of us in the industry is that this is the wrong way to do it.
If there is a permanent Act of Parliament, the Minister is going to have a very difficult job to persuade his own Cabinet to give him Parliamentary time to bring in a better Measure if it is required. I do not think that it will be, but it is a consideration to bear in mind. If this is an expiring Act he will then have the opportunity of saying to his colleagues in the Cabinet, "I have a better idea, let us introduce a new type of control or a new type of licence." But if he takes the easy way out and says that this must be permanent legislation, he is removing all further opportunity of benefit from himself. For these reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will accept this Clause.

Mr. Prentice: May I put the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) out of his agony by saying that I have no intention whatever of accepting this new Clause. The arguments to which we have listened from the three hon. Members opposite reflect the basic opposition of hon. Members opposite to the Bill altogether, for the doctrinaire reasons that are so close to their hearts. It is not a question of this side of the House being in favour of control for the sake of control, because the reasons for these powers and the reasons for the permanent aspect have been explained over and over again. Rather it is that hon. Members opposite, because of their particular doctrines, are against all controls, however justified they may be. It is they who are being doctrinaire about this, and are wilfully refusing to recognise the case that has been deployed over and over again.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), made a number of references to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). As he said, my right hon. Friend was aware that these remarks were


going to be made. He said to me earlier that he would not find it possible to be present and he also said, if it is in order to report the conversation, "I know that you can deal with him all right", and he did not appear to be very worried about the proceedings. Perhaps I can point out one thing, to put the records straight on behalf of my right hon. Friend. He did not make a speech attacking the Selective Employment Tax—he said that he was in favour of the lax but against the classification of the construction industry under it, and that is a point that should be made clear.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It is equally important to make it clear that what the right hon. Gentleman said was that the two taken together were not compatible with the interests of the construction industry, or words to that effect. I hope that the Minister will look them up carefully. As to my reference to him, the reason why he found it unnecessary to attend was because he knew that I would be speaking of him in my usual good-natured style.

Mr. Prentice: I am also trying to be good natured, but this Clause produces a deep difference of principle between us, and the arguments, although good natured should be clear and strong on both sides. I want to clarify what is at snake, and to make it clear to hon. Members opposite that this Bill does not provide for permanent controls. It provides a permanent machinery which can be used for control if and when control is necessary.
The degree of control that is exercised could be nil. There could well be a situation in which there were long periods when it was not considered necessary to restrict or to delay any applications. Over a short run this could be operated by saying "Yes" to all applications. Over longer periods the powers under Clause 8(1, b) of the Bill could operate so that controls were entirely suspended. In other words, it would be unnecessary for those wishing to make developments to apply to the Ministry. If that situation arose, and if, at some later date, the Government of the day wished to re-impose the controls they would have to do so by way of an Order requiring the affirmative consent of the

House, so that there would be Parliamentary control over this, and I agree that there should be.
It is important to make that distinction. It is not the permanent controls that we are discussing but the power of the Government to operate controls and whether that power is to be a permanent power which would not require to be renewed from time to time. We have been arguing the case for permanency at all stages of the Bill. I have argued it on more than one occasion during the stages that there have been since I took office. I have never accepted the fact, and hon. Members should not attribute it to the Government, that this Bill was brought in only to deal with a particular crisis in the balance of payments. It was the crisis in the balance of payments in July, 1965, that made it urgent to operate controls and it is arguable that, if that situation had not arisen, then this Bill would not have come forward in the way that it did or at the time that it did. The Bill introduced in the last Parliament was a Bill which provided for permanent machinery.
I should like hon. Members opposite to recognise that the case for the future does not depend upon whether there are particular balance of payments crises. It is a question of the need to relate the growth of demand for the construction industry with its capacity. I should like to put it in this context. Anyone looking at the future demand for building and civil engineering is bound to come to the conclusion that this will be an expanding demand which will grow very rapidly over the years.
There are three reasons for this. First of all, the population of the country is rising. At present it is 52 million, and by the end of the century it will be 72 million. This clearly means a very big increase in demand for houses, schools, hospitals, factories and so on. Secondly, there is naturally a proper demand for rising standards, which will create additional demand. Thirdly, the growth of construction is related to economic growth generally. The nation is not going to get the economic growth that we know to be possible and that we all want unless the growth of construction is one of the fundamental events taking place within the general growth of the economy. Therefore, those people looking forward to a career as workers, professional men


and managers in the industry, can look forward with confidence to a growth of demand. What worries them, because of their past experience, is that the curve may not be going steadily upwards all the time but jerking about and that, although the general trend is upwards, there will be a number of ups and downs on the way.

7.30 p.m.

Hon. Members opposite sometimes talk as though the only setback the industry ever had was in the summer of last year. There have been a number of setbacks, some of them due to policies introduced by Government because of balance of payments problems, some of them due to other factors concerning the industry. In other words, this is an industry in which there has been, and still is, uncertainty by employers and contractors about prospects, often leading to hesitations and doubts, and making them less ready than they should be to undertake technological innovations. This is an industry in which the employment situation is not as secure as it should be. Employment is of much too casual a nature. It is very difficult to get the right correlation between the expansion of construction and the production of building materials.

The hon. Member for Londonderry seems to think that we should be embarrassed by talking about bricks. Why? Constantly over the years there have been situations of glut and situations of shortage of bricks and other building materials. It is difficult for the building material industry to be in step with the construction industry.

Because of all these difficulties, there is a duty on the Government to do what they can to help the industry to achieve a more harmonious relationship between the growth of demand and the capacity of the industry. This is not something which the Government, on their own, can guarantee. They cannot guarantee always to get the right answer. But the Government, whichever party may be in power, have a duty to make a regular assessment of the situation as best they can, backed up by as much research as possible—of course, we need more research in this respect—and then exert an influence designed to achieve as far as possible a steady growth of demand

and capacity so as to avoid the kind of problems which have been mentioned.

Mr. Costain: I have listened with much interest to the Minister's philosophy about the building industry, but can he explain why the Bill—which gives the right to build bingo halls in Glasgow without a licence and makes it impossible to build a nursing home in Folkestone—has to do with it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into discussing the merits of the Bill again.

Mr. Prentice: If it were in order, I should point out that Glasgow was a development district, but it is not in order, and therefore I had better not pursue that point. I am prepared to argue these points. Indeed, we have argued them at length, as hon. Members opposite know.
We have a duty to play our part in trying to achieve a greater harmony than there has previously been between the growth of demand and the growth of capacity. This is a permanent duty. In order to exercise that duty, the Government should have the right to bring in these controls to the extent that they are needed. As I have pointed out, there may be long periods in which they are not needed. The Bill does not specifically provide for permanent controls; it provides merely for the machinery by which they can be introduced.
I agree about the need for more research. This is a matter to which we are giving great attention in the Ministry, in its Research and Development Group. It is something which the industry should have done more for itself in the past. One of the great criticisms of the building industry is that it has never had a research association.
I am glad to remind the House of something which was made public a few weeks ago Perhaps it did not come to the attention of all hon. Members. Two or three weeks ago I was able to preside over a meeting of the representatives of the building and civil engineering industry in which a statement of intent was agreed, after a long period of negotiations, to extend the Civil Engineering Research Association to cover the building industry. Promises of financial support have been made by builders and


civil engineers to allow this growth to lake place. This is a very important point. I agree that we need research both within Government and within industry about the kind of problems we have been discussing and a whole range of other problems which are not relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would the Minister tell us what he has in mind? Does it follow closely on the lines being planned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) when he was at the Ministry? Is it on the lines of the Committee's Report at that time?

Mr. Prentice: I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Woodbine Parish Report. It follows that in certain respects, but not in every respect. I should be glad to answer questions about that when it is appropriate.
There was agreement at the meeting of representatives to which I have referred on a statement of intent which in some cases has to be referred back and approved by the bodies represented. Therefore, the matter is still not final. But this was an important development after a long period of delay.
I have given the basic reasons why we do not accept the Amendment, which would limit the period of the Bill. All I have done is merely to repeat arguments which hon. Members opposite have heard many times. The reference to three years in the Amendment makes it even more unacceptable. It bears very little relation to the time-scale in which these matters are dealt with.
The House will be aware that I gave assurances in Committee, and my predecessor gave assurances in the previous Parliament, that we would give advice to intending developers for up to two years or, exceptionally, up to three years before the starting date. It would not be sensible before the Bill has passed into law to lay down a three-year limit which would inevitably lead to a situation in which some people might gamble on the fact that the Measure would operate for three years and might not be renewed.
However, I emphasise that I do not resist the Amendment purely because it refers to a limit of three years. I would equally emphatically resist it if it laid

down any period. The case has been made, and has not been answered by hon. Members opposite, for putting permanent power in the hands of the Government to operate controls of this kind.

Mr. Channon: We have heard from the Minister an almost passionate defence of the permanent nature of the building controls which the Government seek to impose by the Bill. I agree with him that there is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House in their approach to the Bill. We consider that the Bill, if it is to be enacted, should be temporary. We have explained that we are not wedded necessarily to the period of three years, although I would point out that three years from the date on which the Bill is passed will be four years from the time that it was first announced to the House, if we are lucky. That makes some of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms a little invalid.
I do not accept what the Minister said on one point, that it was not just due to the crisis of 27th July that the Bill was introduced. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that he had no intention to impose controls of this sort on the building industry. When those controls were at last brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were to meet a temporary situation, and that is why we say that the Bill should not be permanent. This is typical of the way in which the Government act. First, they say that they will not introduce controls, then they introduce controls to deal with a temporary situation, and then they make those controls permanent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) referred to what happened about the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act. It was a retrospective Act, like this Bill. We were told that it was a temporary Measure, introduced for seven years. We were told by the Minister that he saw no need for controls to be imposed on the building industry. Then came the emergency of July, 1965, and then came this legislation which became permanent and included offices by a side wind in spite of the fact that the Government only a year earlier had introduced temporary legislation to deal with the problem of offices.


Now, by a side wind, they take permanent powers of this kind.
It was most unfair of the Minister to say that we were against all controls on doctrinaire grounds. He knows perfectly well that we did not vote against the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act. We did not vote against the Statutory Instrument applying its terms to the Birmingham conurbation which was brought in almost at once after the Act became law in spite of assurances that any extension was most unlikely.
We have already seen the disastrous effects of Government policy upon the building industry and upon housing. We are convinced that the Bill, which is now reaching its final stages in the House after a stormy passage, will do nothing to help

solve the housing problem and the problems of the building and construction industry. If it must be enacted at all, it ought to be a temporary Measure. It is a disgrace that it should be introduced as a permament feature of legislation over the building and construction industry.

Although we have had a friendly discussion on the Clause, the Government must realise that the division between us on this issue is fundamental. As the Minister is unable to make any concession to us about the permanent or temporary nature of the Bill, the only course open to us is to show our disapproval of their intentions by dividing the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 203.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[7.41 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nott, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Onslow, Cranley


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Braine, Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Gordon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kirk, Peter
Roots, William


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Seb'gh & Whitby)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Denis


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Forrest, George
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Sir Richard
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper



Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. George Younger.



Nicholls, Sir Harmar





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Jack
Bence, Cyril


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)


Alldritt, Walter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bessell, Peter


Archer, Peter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bishop, E. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel
Blackburn, F.




Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas


Boardman, H.
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
Park, Trevor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bradley, Tom
Henig, Stanley
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Brooks, Edwin
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hooley, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, William (Rugby)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Probert, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Hoy, James
Randall, Harry


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rankin, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Redhead, Edward


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coe, Denis
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spen b'gh)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rose, Paul


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dewar, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dobson, Ray
Lawson George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Slater, Joseph


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lomas, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Lubbock, Eric
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Thornton, Ernest


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael
Thorpe, Jeremy


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Whitaker, Ben


Forrester, John
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gardner, A. J.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Newens, Stan
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gourlay, Harry
Norwood, Christopher
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gregory, Arnold
Oakes, Gordon



Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Charles Grey and


Hamling, William
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. R. W. Brown.



Orme, Stanley

Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF WORK EXCEPT UNDER LICENCE.)

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert:
or, in the event of his death, at the expense of his personal representatives acting as such".
This Amendment covers a point which was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). He will recall that I undertook to consider it between then and now. I

promised that what he wished to achieve would be done either by an Amendment in this form or, possibly, by deletion of subsection (3). It is a matter I have discussed with the representatives of the Opposition and I know they prefer an Amendment in this form.
Subsection (3) makes it clear that the duty of a person paying the cost of a development is to obtain a licence, and this Amendment extends the provision to the heirs of a licensee after the licensee's


decease and makes it lawful for the licence to remain valid without interruption, or without the need for the heirs or legal representatives to apply for a new licence.
The Amendment achieves the object which the hon. Member had in mind, and I hope that it will be acceptable to him and to the House in this form.

Mr. Costain: I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for carrying out his promise by moving this Amendment. It does relieve a large part of my apprehension. It does mean there will be continuity of licence.
However, I am bound to point out to him and to the House that what we are doing now is not only giving the right for the licence to be transferred to the heirs of the deceased but also incidentally passing on to the heir a liability to a prison sentence, because if the original licensee exceeded the licence, and the licence is transferred to the heir, then, according to the Bill, as I read it, the person who inherits the licence is made culpable for the sins of the father: the sins of the father would be passed on to the children.
I am somewhat relieved that—

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member will be aware that there is a defence available later in the Clause which would be available to anyone in this position who could show that he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to have known the conditions of the licence. I would have thought that the hon. Member would have accepted that as being a reasonable defence, unless the person concerned was deliberately trying to evade the law on this point.

Mr. Costain: I am very grateful to the Minister for anticipating the very words I was going to say, and I was about to make the point that those very factors were inserted into the Clause when we were in Committee because of pressure we exerted upon him. Indeed, the technical Press has called the Committee on this Bill Parliament at its best. It was because of the technical Amendments that we drew that comment from the technical Press.
I shall not delay the House any more than is necessary, but there is just one

further point on the licence. In Committee—it was on 12th May—I raised the problem of what happens in amalgamations—when there is an amalgamation of two companies and the licence is transferred to the company taken over. The Minister undertook then to have a look at the situation. He has obviously found some difficulty in getting an Amendment down to cover it. I appreciate that, because when, in Committee, we were trying to get Amendments down about it, we found it difficult.
The Minister said at that time that he was very anxious that licences should not be bought and sold, and we accepted that. It is a very valid point. We do not want to have licences in the market. Nevertheless, there will be cases of genuine takeover bids with genuine amalgamations of factories—possibly of adjoining factories. If the licence is transferred to the amalgamation, that is all right; but I would point out to the Minister that if one of the factories carried on, say maintenance, or alteration, work it might inadvertently break the licensing law; through the amalgamating of the two together there might be over-spending of money inadvertently. I think that it would relieve our worry if the Minister would make a brief statement on this point. I am sure that he will take the view that that would be an inadvertent breaking of the law. If he would make this point he would relieve our anxiety and satisfy our problem.

Mr. Prentice: If I may have leave to speak again, I would say, first, that the hon. Member is correct in saying that we were anxious to avoid a situation in which licences themselves could be bought and sold. This was the major objection to the other half of the Amendment the hon. Member moved in Committee. If the main licence lapsed after the takeover bid in the circumstances he has mentioned the person concerned could apply again, and we would take into account all the circumstances. The hon. Member was instancing a hypothetical concern in circumstances favourable to it, and in circumstances as favourable as that there would be in those circumstances no difficulty, although we would, of course, have to look at the merits of each case as it arose.
As for inadvertently breaking the law, I think that the same remark applies that


I made when I interrupted the hon. Gentleman just now. There is a defence provided for this, provided that the conditions were fulfilled for the defence, as laid down in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(HOUSING AND INDUSTRIAL, STORAGE AND RESEARCH PREMISES.)

Mr. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 in page 5, line 32, at the end to insert:
(d) for storing in the course of a trade or business anything which is to be or has been subjected to, or has resulted from, an industrial process carried on in the course of that trade or business.

On Report we have had one up and one down; the Minister gives one Amendment and refuses the next; he has already made a further Amendment and I hope that is not an indication that he is going to turn this one down, because this one is only putting back into the Bill what was there when the Minister presented the Bill to the House on Second Reading. There must be a very good reason why a Bill which had already been considered in Committee and had had turned upon it the hot fire of debate in Committee should have been presented to the House with a provision for the exemption of warehouses. When we last got to Committee the Minister used his overwhelming majority—I will not go into the reasons how he got it, for it would be out of order now—to alter the Bill back. Basically, he had the Bill in the first place as we want it now to be.
Basically, what we are saying is that if a manufacturer wants to build a warehouse he should not have to go through the paraphernalia of getting a licence. Warehouses are not built for fun. Nobody builds a warehouse with the idea of over-stretching the economy. The difficulty I see about the control of warehouses is that a number of manufacturers do not wish to build warehouses in their factories—or they would like to avoid doing so. Every manufacturer is hopeful that when he has manufactured his products they will be delivered straight from his factory to the consumer or to the wholesaler. Manufacturers are always reluctant, particularly at the time of a credit squeeze, to build a warehouse.

8.0 p.m.

No real argument was put forward in the debate in Committee for doing away with this, except the old one of control for control's sake. But, since then, we have had the example of a shipping strike. We have seen how easy it is for the ordinary flow of production from a factory to be held up for reasons outside the control of that factory or that of the client. It is on those occasions when warehouses are vital, to store goods being held up in the docks and to maintain them in good condition. When these crises arise, as I am afraid they will from time to time under the present Administration, it is essential to get a warehouse up quickly, because it is an unforeseen factor.

The reason for asking that warehouses should be exempt is simply that it will enable a manufacturer faced with that sort of situation to get busy and put up the temporary or permanent warehouse quickly without going through the rigmarole of getting licensing approval. The Minister has demonstrated how reasonable he will be about applications which are made to him, and we have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

I congratulate the Government Whips for persuading four Labour Members to remain in the Chamber. I am surprised that we have not had a single Liberal taking part in the debate, because I understand that a lot of them went into the Lobby against us on the last Amendment.

Mr. Channon: Is that not all the more extraordinary in view of the fact that they told us earlier that, although they liked the Bill, they were against the permanent nature of it?

Mr. Costain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. They also told us earlier all that they were going to do on Report; yet they have not bothered to come into the Chamber.
It seems to us to be absolutely unnecessary to bring warehouses back into control. The Minister had the right idea the first time, and we cannot understand why he has changed his mind. If he will accept the Amendment, I will sit down immediately, but I see that he shakes his head, so may I ask him to give better reasons than he did in Committee why that should not happen?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): I will give some very good reasons why we cannot accept the Amendment. In the first place it does not do what the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) wants. It would exempt all the storage accommodation of a manufacturing concern, wherever situated, but none of the storage accommodation of a concern wholesaling or retailing goods manufactured by someone else. It would discriminate unfairly in favour of a large concern which acted as its own wholesaler and retailer and, naturally, it would create anomalies.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) will appreciate that and perhaps not be so keen on it. The storage accommodation of a concern which received a beverage in casks and bottled it itself would be exempt, whereas that of a concern which received the beverage already bottled would not.
However, the serious difficulty from the point of view of building control is that storage and warehousing should have no more priority than hotels. The hon. Gentleman spoke about educational and nursing establishments in his own constituency. I am sure that he would not rate warehouses and storage places over those.
There is a considerable quantity of applications coming forward. Out of 357 applications for projects costing £127 million received up to 1st July of this year, 53 were for storage projects costing £16 million. That means that storage projects represent about 15 per cent. of those subject to control.
Apart from the fact that the Amendment does not do what the Opposition want, it would create a very serious imbalance in the building control. So far, these projects have been looked at quite favourably. Forty-nine storage projects have been authorised, one has been refused and three are under consideration. But, from the point of view of the permanent nature of the control and its purpose—having an economic control for the country over the building industry—it is very necessary to include storage projects.
However, I have consulted my right hon. Friend and he agrees that we can give the assurance that, if there are emergency situations of the sort which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe has been describing, we will take steps to see that applications are processed as rapidly as possible. We would expect the applicant to have taken the same sort of emergency steps to clear the planning permission, and, if it was a matter of the sponsor Department being concerned, to have got the sponsorship of the Department. If he came to us personally we would see that the staff processed his application as quickly as possible. I do not think that hon. Members have made any suggestion that the Department is not acting expeditiously, though, of course, there would have to be consultations with the regions.
I can give the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that assurance, although I cannot give him an assurance on his Amendment because it creates these anomalies, and it is an important section of control. I hope that, with those half-sweet words, he will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has another go at this, during the consultations which may take place with my hon. Friends, I hope that the Minister will not use this sledgehammer argument against our amateur efforts at drafting Amendments. I use the word "amateur" in its best sense. The Government have at their disposal all the expertise of the Parliamentary draftsmen, and it is up to the Opposition to try to embrace in simple words what they mean and what they think the House would like to put into a Bill. It is not much good the Government saying that it does not do what my hon. Friend says it does or wants it to do. If the Government wanted to accept the Amendment, they could always do something about it in another place.
I did not follow the Parliamentary Secretary's point on the contradictions about bottles stored indoors for personal use and bottles stored outdoors if they are to be sold for someone else. I come from a city where we go in very much for the storage of beverages both in and


out of doors. I think that the Government are making this too complicated.
The Minister gave an assurance, but it seems unnecessarily complicated. If we have to have these promises to the effect that everything will be all right, why have the control in the first place? Why not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Channon: The Parliamentary Secretary made some flattering reference to me in the course of his remarks. I was listening to him with great care, and what he said seems to make no difference to any firm with which I am connected whether the Amendment is accepted or not. In view of his remarks, perhaps I had better declare a lack of interest in the Amendment; in fact, a disinterest.
The hon. Gentleman went some way towards helping us, but it is a bit hard when one remembers that when the Bill was first brought before the House in the last Parliament we were given a promise by the previous Minister that he would exempt warehouses.
It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary sticking on drafting points. We all know that unless my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) drafts every Amendment, we will not necessarily get them right. But that is a trifling excuse for the Government to attack us about. It means that they cannot think of anything else to say. It is clear what we intended to do, and it is perfectly clear what the former Minister was prepared to accept.
We have heard a lot from the Prime Minister in one of his more expansive

moods talking about forging a new Britain in the white heat of the scientific revolution. Here, the Minister is trying to make it more difficult to build warehouses and not less difficult. I cannot pretend that the Amendment is of fundamental importance to the working of the Bill.

Mr. Harry Randall: The hon. Gentleman should not get "het up".

Mr. Channon: I am not getting "het up". I am being remarkably calm. It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman here. Perhaps he will intervene later. We have not, until now, had a speech from a back bencher opposite, even from a sedentary position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) made an unanswerable case for the Amendment. He made it clear that the intention is to exempt warehouses, which, as he said, are not built for fun, but because there is a need for them. The control which the Minister proposes to exercise, which his predecessor did not, and in fact gave the assurance that he would not, is a reprehensible step. Therefore, subject to what my hon. Friends say, I think that we should once more show our disagreement with the Government and divide the House on the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 117, Noes 197.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[8.11 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Braine, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel
Jopling, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Forrest, George
Kimball, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kitson, Timothy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Campbell, Gordon
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, H. P. G.
Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Loveys, W. H.


Cooke, Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MarArthur, Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McMaster, Stanley


Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maddan, Martin


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul
Maginnis, John E.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Marten, Neil


Currie, G. B. H.
Heseltine, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Dance, James
Higgins, Terence L.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast. N.)




Miscampbell, Norman
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mauro, Hector
Pounder, Rafton
Wall, Patrick


Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Pym, Francis
Walters, Denis


Murton, Oscar
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ridsdale, Julian
Webster, David


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, William


Nott, John
Roots, William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Onslow, Cranley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Royle, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Scott, Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Younger, Hn. George


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)



Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stainton, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peel, John
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Alldritt, Walter
Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter
Fowler, Gerry
Neal, Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Newens, Stan


Ashley, Jack
Gardner, A. J.
Norwood, Christopher


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Ogden, Eric


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Orbach, Maurice


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Bessell, Peter
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Park, Trevor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boardman, H.
Hazell, Bert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hoy, James
Randall, Harry


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rankin, John


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Redhead, Edward


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Meryn


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rose, Paul


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lawson, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leadbitter, Ted
Slater, Joseph


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Dewar, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stonehouse, John


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Thorpe, Jeremy


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston S.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William



Millan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)







Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willie, George (Edinburgh, E,)
Winterbottom, R. E.
Mr. Charles Grey and


Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Mr. William Howie.

Schedule.—(NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES AND UNDERTAKINGS: EXEMPTED BODIES.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 22, after "The", insert "United Kingdom".—[Mr. Boyden.]

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is now almost the same as it was when I moved the Second Reading on 2nd May, after the very small Amendments made on Report this evening. It has had a brief passage both in Committee and on Report. This reflects the skill of my predecessor in bequeathing me a good Bill, and on the skill and hard work of the Parliamentary Secretary who has worked on it both in the last Parliament and in this.
I cannot refrain from referring to the failure of the Opposition in their attempt to make this a major political issue. They have failed to arouse interest in it and have found themselves in this Parliament going through a token repetition of their votes against it without any head of steam behind their attitude.
The Bill provides a permanent power to exercise measures of control over large privately sponsored construction projects. I would remind the House that it does not apply to housing or to industrial building; it does not apply to building in development areas; it does not apply to work in the public sector; it does not apply to work of less than £100,000 in value. It applies to about 7 per cent. of the construction effort of the country. In doing so, it gives the Government a measure of control, which has happily been described as a fingertip control, to vary the load on the industry arid to take the measures necessary to see that demand and capacity march in step.
I want to pay tribute to the cooperation of the industry in working the authorisation system that has been in existence for the past year. The operation has been a smooth one. The overwhelming majority of potential developers have co-operated in this, and I am grateful for the way they have done so.
I would add that in my period of office, and in conversations that I have had with leaders of the industry, I have not sensed any hostility to the concept of this control. I want to make clear what I am saying. Anyone who wants to carry out a particular development would rather not have Government control. However, looking at the general problem and listening to the views of leading figures in the industry, I can state that among the many problems to which they have referred they have not mentioned this as one of their difficulties. Most individuals have volunteered the statement that this is a sensible provision.
That makes me return to the charge that hon. Members opposite, in their opposition to the Bill, are motivated by a doctrinaire objection to controls. In opposing the Bill they have to face the logic of the alternatives. Either they are saying that the Government should never intervene to achieve the objective of regulating the load on the industry—if so they are accepting that, as they did in previous discussions, the difficulties that the industry faces in fluctuations in demand but, even so, are prepared to stand on the side lines and do nothing about it—or they are saying that such restrictions might be applied from time to time, but should apply only in the public sector. In other words, the Government can defer schools or hospitals but should not defer holiday camps. I do not know if that is the position that they take. Do they seek to defer council houses but not luxury flats?
Or they are saying that any control which is operated by the Government should be operated, as it has been in the past, by the blunt instruments of the Bank Rate, the credit squeeze and such things—in other words, that these controls should apply equally to factories as to bingo halls, or to an area of heavy local unemployment as to an area of full employment. If they reject, as they should logically, all these objectives, they must accept something in the nature of what I am proposing here as being necessary.

Mr. Costain: If the right hon. Gentleman had heard the speech that I made


in the Second Reading debate he would know that I said that in the industry certain things might get overheated, and that we should licence materials for luxury items. That is the control that I advocated. The right hon. Gentleman is making the issue much too black and white. We are not doctrinaire; we are realistic.

Mr. Prentice: I am not sure that he would receive many thanks from the materials producers or from most builders for suggesting that as an alternative, but I note the fact that he has at least suggested an alternative, which is unusual in view of the attitude of most of his hon. Friends, who have been negative throughout.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman will concede that the purpose of his regulator is to direct building operations into the more essential fields, such as housing—to get more houses. But that they have not got, in spite of the controls.

Mr. Prentice: I would love to debate housing with the hon. Gentleman if it were allowed, or were in order. I am willing to do so at any time that he may like to choose. We had a debate on this matter a week or two ago in which the Opposition were trounced, especially by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Hon. Members opposite must face the fact—I appreciate that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has made an individual contribution—that we are proposing a practical means of dealing with a long-term problem, and that without such means a future Government would be thrown back to doing nothing about the problem, or would have to concentrate only on restrictions on the public sector to the advantage of the private sector, or thrown back to dealing with the private sector only by the blunt instruments of the Bank Rate, the credit squeeze, and so on, which would not distinguish in priorities as between types of development or regions of the country.
The common sense of this Measure is accepted generally by the industry and the professions associated with it, and by public opinion. It is a contribution towards the strategy which a Government must follow in the future in order to try

to improve the efficiency and productivity of the building industry, one of the conditions for which is that there should be a sensible relationship between the growth of demand and the growth of the capacity of the industry to meet that demand.
For those reasons, I commend the Third Reading of the Bill.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: We have listened to what was, at this stage, an extraordinarily ungracious speech from the Minister. I had intended to pay a tribute to him for his unfailing, if sometimes rather abrasive, courtesy in Committee. I shall now have to limit myself to referring to his demeanour in Committee. Happily, I can at least say how grateful we are to the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy in Committee. If, on occasion, we found him a little polemical we answered back and all went well. There was no complaint about him, and we are grateful to him.
I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for all the immensely hard work he put into our discussions of the Bill and to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), without whose experience we should have been much the poorer. Indeed, the same goes for all my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate.
I was somewhat surprised by the Minister's attack this evening. I know very well that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would probably call me to order if I were to pursue him into some of the realms which he entered. The Third Reading of a Bill is concerned with what is in the Bill and not with the alternatives which the Minister might have followed, so I cannot pursue him in that direction.
What is distressing, at this stage of the Bill, is the lack of interest from the party opposite. It has always been remarkable and it is indicative of their lack of interest in the construction industry, which we must all deplore. They have all left their places to go to rest, presumably in the calm after the storm of this morning's Parliamentary Labour Party meeting, they have lost interest in the construction industry.
Even more remarkable is the total disappearance from the field of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. We have heard


promises from them, at stages through the Bill, that they would help us on the Committee stage and would put down Amendments, and that if they did not get to the Committee stage they would come to Report and put forward many Amendments. Apart from the fact that they have voted on matters on which they have not heard the arguments, we have had neither sight nor sound of them this evening. This is something which the construction industry will deplore as much as I do. They know now what help they can expect from that quarter.
The point has now been reached in our discussions when both sides are fully exposed. The principles of the Bill have been fully discussed and we have reached the Great Divide. We have run through

two Ministers, two Bills, and two Parliaments. There is little else that can be said, save that the Bill, in itself, is a very small part of the uncertainty which the Government have brought about in the construction industry in the last eighteen months—an uncertainty which we deeply deplore in one of the most important industries in the country.

This is a minor cause of the uncertainty. If we can, at this stage, help to remove some part of the uncertainty by not disputing the Bill further, I am delighted to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide against its Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 118.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[8.31 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Judd, Frank


Alldritt, Walter
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyon, Clifford


Archer, Peter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Ashley, Jack
Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lipton, Marcus


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth


Barnett, Joel
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lubbock, Eric


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McBride, Neil


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
McCann, John


Bessell, Peter
Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H.
Gardner, A. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boyden, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Courlay, Harry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Sob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Haxell, Bert
Neal, Harold


Carmichael, Neil
Heifer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Henig, Stanley
Norwood, Christopher


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oakes, Gordon


Coe, Denis
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Hooson, Emlyn
O'Malley, Brian


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice


Cronin, John
Howie, W.
Orme, Stanley


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymoutn, S'tn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, S. D. (Merthyr)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'ee & Spenb'gh)
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dobson, Ray
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunn, James A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Probert, Arthur


Donnell, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry




Rankin, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Redhead, Edward
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Rees, Merlyn
Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Small, William
Whitaker, Ben


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St, P'c'as)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W,)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Stonehouse, John
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Rose, Paul
Swingler, Stephen
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Symonds, J. B.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Sheldon, Robert
Thornton, Ernest



Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Thorpe, Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Charles Grey and


Silkin, John (Deptford)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)





NOES


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brews, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, Gordon
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, H. P. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Roots, William


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Royle, Anthony


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Dance, James
Loveys, W. H.
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil
Walters, Denis


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Forrest, George
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscamphell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Cower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar



Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Mr. Jasper More and


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — DOCKS AND HARBOURS [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported,

That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for regulating the employment of dock workers, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under section 12 of the Harbours Act 1964 which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the class of persons to whom and the expenses in respect of which

assistance by way of grant may be given under that section;
(b) the issue of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to enable the Minister of Transport to make loans under section 11 of the said Act of 1964 by virtue of provisions of the said Act of the present session extending the expenses in respect of which such loans may be made;
(c) the raising under the National Loans Act 1939 of any money required for the purpose of providing sums to be issued as mentioned in paragraph (b) above;
(d) the payment into the Exchequer and reissue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Minister of Transport in respect of any loans mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

Resolution agreed to.

DOCKS AND HARBOURS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF POWER TO MAKE GRANTS AND LOANS FOR EXECUTION OF HARBOUR WORKS, ETC.)

(1) The power of the Minister to give assistance by way of grant under section 12(1) of the 1964 Act (grants to harbour authorities for execution of harbour works, etc.) shall include power to give such assistance to any person (whether or not a harbour authority) engaged in, or proposing to become engaged in, the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour or the carrying out of harbour operations, and references in that section to a harbour authority shall be construed accordingly.
(2) The expenses in respect of which such assistance may be given under the said section 12(1) shall include

(a) expenses incurred, by any person proposing to become engaged in the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour, in executing works for the construction of the harbour;
(b) expenses incurred, by any person so engaged or proposing to become so engaged, in executing works for the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour or in acquiring plant or equipment required for the carrying out at the harbour of harbour operations;
(c) expenses incurred, by a harbour authority which is or proposes to become so engaged in the exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties, in acquiring land required for the purposes of the harbour or an extension thereof or in constructing a harbour;
(d) expenses incurred, by any person engaged or proposing to become engaged in carrying out harbour operations at a harbour, in executing works required for the carrying out of harbour operations there or in acquiring plant or equipment so required.
(3) In accordance with the last foregoing subsection paragraph (a) of section 12(1) of the 1964 Act (expenses in respect of which assistance may be given) shall cease to have effect, and in paragraph (b) of that subsection for the words "that paragraph"there shall be substituted the words" paragraph (a) of section 11(1) of this Act as amended by any subsequent enactment".
(4) Any grant under the said section 12 may be made on such terms and conditions (including conditions for repayment in specified circumstances) as the Minister may think fit to impose.
(5) The expenses in respect of which loans may be made to a harbour authority under section 11(1) of the 1964 Act (loans to harbour authorities for the execution of harbour works, etc.) shall include expenses incurred by a harbour authority—


(a) in executing works for the construction, in the exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties, of a harbour which the authority proposes to become engaged in improving, maintaining or managing;
(b) in acquiring plant or equipment required for the carrying out of harbour operations at a harbour which the authority is constructing or proposing to construct as aforesaid;
(c) in acquiring land for the purpose of so constructing a harbour.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.41 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It is to this Clause that I referred last week when we presented the amended Money Resolution. On that occasion, I quite understood the complaints that were made by some hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—about the procedure, but I want again to explain the circumstances in which this new Clause has been presented.
As hon. Members will know, in paragraph 55 of the White Paper on Investment Incentives— Cmnd. 2874 — the Government announced their intention of using the powers under the 1964 Harbours Act to provide the necessary financial assistance to bring about the reorganisation and modernisation of the ports. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have been urgently considering what assistance it would be appropriate to give, and taking advice and hearing representations from many quarters. Much of the advice has stressed that it is equally important to give assistance in this form to port operators as to the statutory port authorities, as provided under the 1964 Harbours Act.
This course was urged on us, for example, by the National Ports Council, by the Economic Development Committee for Export Movement, by the National Association of Port Employers, by the London Association of Public Wharfingers and by the British Shippers' Council. It is as a result of those consultations and representations that this Clause has been produced. The reason why it has been impossible to produce


it before now—and why it was therefore necessary last week to go through the procedure of introducing the amended Money Resolution—was because of the consultations which quite properly should go on under the White Paper on Investment Incentives.
The purpose of this Clause—which appears complex on the surface in its drafting, but which is quite simple in its object—is to empower my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to make grants towards the capital investment of non-statutory port authorities and operators as well as to statutory authorities which are provided for by Sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act, 1964, that is to say, those operators who carry out harbour operations as defined in that Act. That is the first purpose of the Clause.
The second purpose is to correct a defect which has been discovered in the 1964 Harbours Act. We have been advised that it is open to doubt whether that Act as it now stands empowers the Minister to make loans and grants towards the capital cost of constructing an entirely new harbour. It is perfectly clear that it was the intention of Parliament at that time that it should be provided for in the Harbours Act, 1964. We want to be quite sure that this is made plain in the law. Therefore, a subsection of this Clause clears the matter up.

8.45 p.m.

In the interesting discussion we had on the amended Money Resolution the question of cost was raised. The best estimate we can make of the cost of grants to operators and non-statutory authorities under this Clause is about £1 million each year. The total cost of the grant scheme decided upon by Her Majesty's Government is expected to be £9 million this year and about £13 million per year thereafter. Hon. Members will know that in a reply last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) the purposes were outlined. I should explain that Section 13 of the Harbours Act laid down the total amount which my right hon. Friend may give by way of loans and grants for this purpose and limited it to £50 million in all.

This limit may be increased under the 1964 Act to £100 million, but only by

Resolution of this House. We do not propose at present to amend this limit in any way. Therefore, the amount of expenditure by way of loans and grants provided for by this extension of my right hon. Friend's powers is contained within the limits laid down in Section 13 of the Harbours Act. I trust that that explains the nature of the Clause and that it will commend itself to the House, because it is designed entirely, on the basis of representations made to us from many quarters I have mentioned, to assist and accelerate the process of reorganising and modernising the docks.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I was interested to read in the Economist, after the few words which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I had last week on the occasion of the debate on the Money Resolution, that
The practice also seems to be growing of inserting new things into Bills at the Committee stage. This makes the Opposition suspicious and suspicion decreases helpfulness.
I am glad to be able to say, having listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation of this Clause, and having had a chance to see it—which I did not have last week—that the Opposition are less suspicious and, therefore, will be more helpful in facilitating its passage.
I think it a pity that this way was chosen to bring about this quite important change. After all, we could have considered it in Committee. I also think it a little strange that we should have power to make grants to harbour authorities and employers in harbours not contained in general legislation, but in a Bill to do with the docks. It is a major part of the Government's whole policy to substitute investment grants for investment allowances.
This is no place to argue the case for or against that, but it seems strange that it was to the Docks and Harbours Bill that this was appended and not to the Bill dealing with investment grants which is now going through the House. It would have been better if it were embraced in the general legislation.
This is the only nationalised or publicly-owned industry which will receive the 20 per cent. grant for investment The rest of the nationalised concerns will


not get the 20 per cent. grant on their main monopoly function, only on their peripheral activities. We make no corn-plaint, because we recognise the need for the investment grants. We should like to feel that harbour authorities can benefit. This is wanted and it has been asked for by all the bodies to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have no doubt that it matches the very important need for more investment in the ports.
What we like about the Clause is that it is not confined to harbour authorities. Private employers in the docks will equally be able to benefit from it. Therefore, there is no discrimination. The charge of discrimination has, I believe, been levelled in respect of another Bill at present going through the House. We are glad that it has been avoided in the Clause.
I have three specific questions. First, does the Clause apply to all types of wharf owners or wharf operators in the docks? For instance, would a timber merchant who had his sawmills at the edge of the docks, who had a wharf where le unloaded imported timber, and who had to construct dock works from time to time, be eligible for the 20 per cent. under the Clause? Secondly, can a harbour authority which engages in the construction of harbours, docks or wharves and which has, as it were, a direct labour civil engineering department, obtain the investment grant on the purchase of plant for those operations—plant such as excavators and other civil engineering equipment which are extremely expensive?
As I understand, civil engineering contractors with whom harbour authorities might compete for contracts for the docks are eligible for those grants on their investment purchases. It is obviously of vital importance that any competition between civil enginering contractors and the direct labour departments of dock or harbour authorities should be on all fours and be absolutely fair.
Thirdly, there is much talk nowadays about the importance of containers and palletisation and all the modern equipment which is to be used in the handling of goods in the future. Most of the containers, pallets and other equipment will belong to the exporters and

importers who pass their goods through the docks, but it is possible that some harbour authorities will want to own their own containers. Will they be eligible for the 20 per cent. grant on investment in such equipment? This development is something we all want to encourage, but I cannot tell from the drafting of the Clause whether it goes so far as to include equipment such as pallets and containers which are necessary for the efficient future of dock operations.
If the Parliamentary Secretary would respond to these three questions I should be grateful. We welcome the Clause now that we have had a chance to study it and we are glad that it is to be written into the Bill.

Mr. Swingler: I reply by leave of the House. I am glad to know from the hon. Gentleman that we have cleared up any misunderstanding about the presentation of the Clause. I again assure him that the Clause is presented because the Bill is designed to modernise ports and docks. It is a Bill which, in a major respect, in Part III, has to do with the reorganisation of harbours and it was, therefore, thought proper to include it. The new Clause arises out of the Government's White Paper on Investment Incentives and the consultation resulting there from, and, therefore, the time factor in its presentation was affected on account of that.
To come to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the grants will be made by my right hon. Friend to those who are port operators carrying out harbour operations as defined in the Harbours Act, 1964, such as stevedores, wharfingers and such like people. The grants will be made for the purposes which were outlined by my right hon. Friend in a Written Answer which she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 27th June and which, I think, I should put on the record, namely, building and civil engineering works making
a substantial and desirable contribution to facilities for international trade
and, secondly,
specialised plant and mechanical equipment required for loading or unloading goods in or from a sea-going ship or handling such goods on harbour land or at a wharf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 205.]


These are the two principal purposes that come within the definition of harbour operations in the 1964 Act, and the grants will be made for those purposes.
The hon. Gentleman will see that that would not include within its scope, for example, containers, but it does include within its scope major engineering works designed to improve the equipment and the docks in all respects, designed to improve the actual structure of the harbours themselves, and the provision—this is exceedingly important—of that specialised plant and equipment which is now so much needed for the loading and unloading of goods.
It is for these purposes, in the main, that the Government will be providing an increasing amount of money, calculated to be £9 million in this year and £13 million per annum in the following years, in an effort to assist statutory harbour authorities and now, under this Clause, port operators in their endeavours to improve the basic plant that will give us the modern harbours and docks that we so much need.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REVOCATION OF LICENCE ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WELFARE AMENITY SCHEME.)

(1) If it appears to the Minister that there has been a serious or persistent failure on the part of any person to comply with one or more of the requirements imposed on and notified to that person under section 25 of this Act, the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister of Transport, revoke any licence for the time being held by that person.
(2) On deciding to act under the foregoing subsection the Minister shall give notice in writing of his decision to the holder of the licence, the Board and licensing authority stating the reasons for the proposed revocation and the date on which the decision will come into force in accordance with the next following subsection.
(3) The decision shall come into force on the expiration of the period of six months from the date of the giving of the notice of the decision.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Just now the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) quoted the Economist as saying that it was a pity that too much material should be introduced on Report. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this proposed Clause is material which should be introduced on Report in an attempt to meet points raised in Committee.
The object of this Clause is to meet a point that was raised by a number of my hon. Friends in Committee in connection with the requirement that an employer's licence shall be revoked should there be a serious and persistent failure to meet his obligations under the welfare provisions of this Bill. As is pointed out by this Clause, which carries with it ancillary Amendments Nos. 38 and 54 which are consequential upon it, the Minister would have the power to revoke a licence in this event, but would have to hold an inquiry before such a revocation could taken place. This is the effect of Amendment No. 54.
I do not believe that hon. Members will require me to advance detailed arguments or reasons for introducing this Clause. I am sure that they will feel that just as there is provision in the Bill for the revocation of a licence in the event of an employer's failure to carry out the other conditions to the licence, so this provision should also be extended, by this Clause, to the welfare conditions and any serious breach of them. We are convinced that employers will wish to introduce decent amenities for workers and, therefore, the new Clause will be acceptable to both sides of the industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(TRANSPORT ACT 1962 OF LOCAL APPLICATION IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.)

For the purposes of section 14(iii) and section 18(2)(i) of the 1964 Act, the Transport Act 1962 shall be deemed to be of local application insofar as it relates to the powers of the British Transport Docks Board and of the British Railways Board to act as a docks or harbour authority at any docks or harbours which may from time to time become the subject of a Harbour Revision Order or a reorganisation scheme under sections 14 or 18 of the 1964 Act respectively.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That the Clause De read a Second time.
The new Clause arises out of two debates which we had in Committee. The first, which was carried to a vote, was on the question whether the British Transport Docks Board should set up local committees at the ports, and the second was on the Question, "That Clause 40 stand part of the Bill". We did not have a satisfactory answer from the Government in these two discussions.
The point is that the provisions of the Harbours Act, 1964, were intended to overrule completely any previous statutes, either public or private, under which harbour authorities had been set up. In Sections 14 and 18 of the Act, the words
repealing or amending any statutory provision of local application
occur on several occasions, making it clear that the Act's provisions overrule previous Acts.
In most cases, all the statutory provisions under which harbour authorities have been set up were under the Private Bill procedure, although they have occasionally been set up by Public Bill procedure. However that may be, the British Transport Docks Board is now claiming that the Minister's powers to make revision orders and reorganisation schemes under the Harbours Act are restricted, inasmuch as the Board's own powers as dock and harbour authority are derived from the Transport Act, 1962, which it claims is of general, and not local, application.
For this reason, it contends that it is legally impossible for it to agree to set up local boards on the Humber, at Southampton, and in South Wales. All of these areas have groups of ports which would normally have had local boards or committees running them, but do not at present; they have only advisory committees.
The haphazard position, arrived at through history, that the British Transport Docks Board should own the three groups of ports on the Humber, at Southampton, and in South Wales, is an accident. Although the Opposition do not complain that the Board should have those three groups, we feel very strongly

that a greater degree of local autonomy should be provided and that boards, councils or committees should be established upon which will be local user and employee representation to make sure that the local people who use, run, and work in the ports have a full say in how they are managed.
The point is largely legal, in that the Board is claiming that under the previous Acts, it does not have power to set up these local boards. We believe that this is clearly wrong, because the Harbours Act must have overruled that position, since it came two years after the 1962 Act, under which the Board was established.
When we argued this matter in Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that we would be wrong to get the British Transport Docks Board to set up statutory committees in each of its groups of ports. Although we do not agree with that argument, I believe that we have overcome the hon. Gentleman's objection by at least clarifying the position in the new Clause and making it clear that the Docks Board cannot shelter behind a belief that the Act under which it was set up overrides the Harbours Act, 1964.
The new Clause by no means asks for statutory boards. It is entirely permissive. If the Clause is added to the Bill, all that will happen is that the Docks Board can no longer use as an excuse the fact that it is not legally able to set up these local committees. It will then have to argue these matters on their merits with the critics instead of sheltering behind a legal point which, many of us feel, is not a true one.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the hon. Member explain whether the British Transport Docks Board is desirous of having the opportunity of setting up these local committees?

Mr. Ridley: The answer is that there appears to be some dispute between the local harbour users and the Docks Board. This is the reason for the new Clause. It is essential to clear up the legal position.
We argued the merits of the case in Committee upstairs and I would not trespass on the time of the House by going over all that ground again. When,


however, on the debate on Clause 40, I sought to get an exact legal definition from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he was, understandably at such short notice, unable to give it in specific terms.
I shall be grateful, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will either accept the new Clause if there is any doubt about the legal position or, if there is no doubt, give an assurance that the law is as I believe it to be and not as the Docks Board makes it out to be.

Mr. Swingler: I know that I will be acquitted at once of any responsibility for either the Transport Act, 1962, or the Harbours Act, 1964. The legal position is perfectly clear. It is clear that the architects of the Harbours Act, 1964, who no longer occupy this side of the House, did not provide in that Act for harbour revision orders or harbour reorganisation schemes to supersede, or to include repeals of, national powers and functions that had been conferred in the Transport Act, 1962.
The 1962 Act laid down the powers, functions and constitution of the British Transport Docks Board and, presumably, it was carefully thought out by those who were responsible for it. It is no secret in the House that I am not a fanatical enthusiast for the Transport Act, 1962, and I am certainly open to persuasion that we should consider some of its provisions.
That was how the national powers and functions of the British Transport Docks Board were laid down. Subsequently, there came the Harbours Act, 1964, which provided that harbour revision orders could contain provisions to repeal or amend statutory provisions of local application. Local statutory provisions could be repealed within harbour revision orders. At the time when the then Government were considering the Harbours Act, 1964, they could have inserted the provision that harbour revision orders could repeal national statutory provisions. But they did not. We know from the discussions that we have had in Standing Committee that certain problems arise and we have endeavoured to provide for them. There are two particular problems.
One of them is the question of the transfer of capital debt of the Docks Board under a harbour reorganization

scheme. We have provided within this Bill for the transfer to a new authority of an appropriate part of the Docks Board capital debt under a harbour revision order or reorganisation scheme. This is provided for in Clause 39. We have also provided for adjustments to pensions schemes. Where such orders are made it may be necessary to transfer pension entitlements and we have provided for this in Clause 41(3). We have not provided, and I ask the House not to provide, for any alteration at present in the functions and powers of the British Transport Docks Board as laid down in the Acts.
I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would stop knocking the British Transport Docks Board. The Board has been doing an extremely efficient job of work. It has powers to delegate managerial functions to local managers, and it endeavours, I believe, to carry out local consultations to the full. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to write into this Bill various procedures to impose upon the nationalised Docks Board, in contradistinction to any obligations which they wanted to impose upon private or other kinds of authorities, the obligation to consult or to have local committees or things of that kind. We believe that the Board is performing an efficient task, and that it has the necessary powers to delegate to its local managers those powers which ought to be delegated. We believe that it endeavours to carry on with users the best possible consultations. We have provided for any necessary adjustments in the Bill in relation to two matters I have mentioned, capital debt and pension schemes in the case of harbour revision orders. I would ask the House to resist this new Clause which, I regret to say, I can only feel is inspired by the desire to discriminate against the nationalised Docks Board.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, may I reply? I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for having at least cleared up the legal position. Not being a lawyer it takes me a lot of time to get my mind round the point that I was trying to make, but I understood the answer, which will be useful for clarification purposes. I remain uneasy about the substance of the hon. Gentleman's objection to the


effects of accepting this Clause. We have always felt, not because of any discriminatory feeling towards the Docks Board, that ports should be administered on an estuarial basis, and not centrally. I believe that the views of the party opposite run in that direction. We are still apprehensive that not sufficient attention has been pa d by the Docks Board to consultation and the powers to run at the port level. This is not a criticism of the Board. It is a difference of opinion which we are entitled to have.

9.15 p.m.

The main purpose of submitting the new Clause was to get clarification of the legal position. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for clarifying it. Therefore, we do not intend to press the Clause to a Division.

Mr. David Webster: May I answer, I hope fairly, the point which the Parliamentary Secretary made about this side of the House always wanting to "knock" the nationalised industries. I should have hoped that something could be done to encourage discussion of the needs of the docks and estuarial groupings concerned.
An illustration of what I have in mind is the South Wales ports which I visited independently at the time of the Rochdale Commission. I was a week ahead of the Commission. I spent two weeks at the docks, considering their very considerable problems. It seemed to me that consultation and the bringing of users into closer connection with the docks would have been particularly helpful at that time. The South Wales ports were designed about 1910. It was about that time that the last capital structure was done there. The main entry locks date from that time or possibly even earlier. The docks are based completely on a coal-exporting economy, with a tremendous amount of coal staithes built there which have not been used for many years. They are valuable docks.
As is known, the South Wales economy is moving, to a certain extent, away from a coal-mining distributive economy—some of it being by coastal shipping, some by other ways. May I say, without attacking the nationalised industries, that there was not enough adaptation of the South Wales docks to the needs of the new incoming industries, which are

not entirely iron and steel. Many smaller industries came in during the "13 wasted years". The Conservative Government did a great deal to encourage industry to come to this part of the country.
I should have thought that this new Clause was reasonable, that it would have provided an incentive for closer consultation with the industries in the area, and, that it could be accepted.

Mr. Swingler: By leave of the House, may I say that I am glad that I have cleared up the legal position for the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
I say to the hon. Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Webster) that if hon. Members can suggest ways in which the British Transport Docks Board could improve its consultative machinery with users, we shall be very pleased to hear about them. My right hon. Friend the Minister is responsible for the Board. It is accountable to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that it would be very pleased to consider any criticisms. But it is a nationalised organisation of which we can be proud. I am sure that it is in favour of the highest standards of management. Therefore, I do not think that we should accept this proposal.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 4.—(CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES, ETC.)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 44, to leave out from "he" to "the" in line 45 and insert:
makes or is likely to make efficient use of the services of".
This is mainly a drafting Amendment and meets a point made by a number of my hon. Friends in Committee about a possible misunderstanding over the use of the phrase
proper supervision over the dock workers".
There are two possible bases for this misunderstanding. The first is that the phrase might imply certain disciplinary powers which, as we know, are exercised, to a very large extent, by the Dock Labour Board in this industry; and, secondly, that it might well be misunderstood and disliked by a number of dock workers.
The Government are most anxious that the Bill shall be seen as part of the effort to make the industry more efficient and sharply to improve industrial relations in the docks on both sides.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Lady was very modest in suggesting that this is a drafting Amendment. I regard it as an improvement on the words previously used, but I think that it makes quite a difference. It could mean—I hope that it will—a good deal more than just a drafting Amendment.
It is easy to supervise. One can supervise badly. An inefficient business may be supervised. An unproductive business may be supervised. I have an idea that the hon. Lady, on behalf of her right hon. Friend, may have put this forward more in hope than in expectation, because I am not sure how the licensing authority will ascertain whether efficient use is made of the services of dock workers. But the Bill provides that the authority must do just that.
On this side of the House, we applaud the intention and we hope that the authority will make sure that employers make more efficient use of their labour force. But will it take account of a situation in which an employer finds that he is inhibited by restrictive practices from making efficient use of his labour force? Will pressure be brought upon the unions concerned to see that the employer is assisted in making use of the force of workers employed by him?
If there is an over-employment of labour, for example, will the authority say to the employer, "There must be a reduction in employment of labour here because, if there is not, you will not be making efficient use of your labour force"? If there is need to introduce improved mechanisation, will the authority be able to say, "We ought to mechanise here because it will save a certain number of workers and, therefore, produce a more efficient use of the labour force"?
These matters are important. I regard the Amendment as an improvement, but I hope that there will be more than lip-service to its terms. I hope that it will mean in practice that there will be a good look at the use of labour and that

the authority will take every opportunity to see that the employers are not only encouraged but are assisted, through pressure being brought to bear, where necessary, on the unions with which they are working, to enable them to make more efficient use of the labour they employ.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(CONDITIONS AND DURATION OF LICENCES.)

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 5, line 25, at the beginning to insert:
with the consent of the Minister".
This Amendment deals with a point which was discussed in Committee, this being the part of the Bill which gives the licensing authority power to specify in the licence that an employer may employ dock workers only in a specified berth or specified part of the port. My right hon. Friend put up a very strong case for acceptance of the Amendment in Committee, and the hon. Lady said, in reply:
We will look at the provision again, and let him know the result of our consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th June, 1966; c. 40.]
It is on that happy promise that we have put down this Amendment.
The Amendment meets the two sides to the debate which we had in Committee. The hon. Lady pleaded, as a defence of the subsection, that it would occasionally be necessary for a harbour authority to exercise this power of restricting an employer to certain parts of the port. The circumstances in which this should be done are hard to imagine, but I concede that it might occasionally be necessary in the interests of thinning out the numbers of employers and getting rationalisation. So we are not now seeking to take away the power altogether, but we feel that it should be used very rarely and very sparingly and only in certain circumstances, and we feel that persons who are so restricted should have some right of appeal, so that their side of the story can be heard.
By requiring that, in order to make these conditions, the licensing authority has to get the consent of the Minister we believe that it will make it a quite cumbersome and difficult procedure for the licensing authority, and that it will not do it unless it is certain it has need


to do it. At the same time, there is obviously the appeal to the Minister on behalf of an employer who is denied his right and if he feels aggrieved.
I hope that the hon. Lady will respond by accepting this Amendment, in view of her favourable approach to the problem in Committee, and that the compromise form which we have suggested will be acceptable to her.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will notice that in Committee on that occasion I said a little earlier—as also reported in column 40—that the Government were anxious to retain this provision in the Bill because of dangers and fears of fragmentation of handling of cargoes.
The point, as I see it, really is whether the Minister should be asked to give consent. There are three main reasons I should put forward. I believe that the Amendment must arise from the fear that the licensing authority might use its powers to impose particularly onerous conditions on employers, and for this reason the Opposition want the safeguard of the Minister's consent. The first real difficulty here is that the Minister has under the Bill the position of being the appeal body—that is, the person to whom the appeal is made against any condition which an employer, when receiving a licence, finds exceptionally onerous.
The consequence of the Amendment as it stands would be that the Minister would have to give his consent and then would be in the very difficult position indeed of also finding himself being the person to hear the appeal. For this reason alone, it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment as it stands.
There are two subsidiary reasons which I ought also to advance to explain to the hon. Gentleman why we do not feel able to accept the Amendment. One, which I also made in Committee, is that we should like the National Ports Council—I think that the Opposition agree to this—to be able to be consulted. Of course, it would not be possible, as this Amendment stands, for the Council's views to be brought to bear upon the circumstances.
Finally, I would say, what I also said in Committee, that power already exists

for the employers to be restricted to particular berths. This is true, for example, of certain shipping line berths which are restricted in this way. The consequence of this is that we do not feel able to accept the Amendment.
I think that the hon. Member will find that we have accepted Amendments where we could. For the first reason, primarily, I gave, the impossible position of the Minister under the Amendment, we ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 5, line 28, to leave out paragraph (c).
There is a very short point I want to make to the Government. As drafted, subsection (1, c) has a rather frightening vagueness, giving power to the licensing authority to alter the whole basis of individual's businesses, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some idea of what the principles are on which she would expect this power to be used. Are the applicants for licences for cargo handling work, for instance, to fear that the whole basis of their applications may be changed and that the type of work which they seek to handle or the service which they seek to offer may be denied and some other alternative cargo or service imposed in the licences which are offered to them?
I am sure that I am putting too gloomy a view on the use to which the power will be put, but it would be helpful if the hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport could give us an idea of how they see the power working out.

9.30 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance which he wants. The purpose of subsection (1, c) of Clause 5 is to take into account the position of the specialist employers, of whom there are already a number. Under the subsection, it would be possible for a licensing authority to give a licence to such specialist employers with the additional factor entering into it that the authority would know what was the pattern of employment in


its port, which would not be the case with a specialist employer given a licence for special work who was able to change to general stevedoring afterwards. It is to allow the licensing authority to make an organised arrangement in a port that the subsection is in the Bill.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the right of appeal applies should anyone feel that this condition changes his normal pattern of work or puts on him a burden which he feels unable to meet. It should be a safeguard for the employers. But it is not the supposition of the Government that it will be used, other than to make it possible for specialist employers to remain specialist employers.

Sir K. Joseph: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I had thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took Amendments Nos. 53 and 48 together. But I have just had representations from the Opposition Front Bench that they would like to take Amendment No. 48 separately, and I have no objection.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 6, line 16, leave out subsection (5) and insert:

(5) The licensing authority shall specify the period for which the licence is granted, and shall determine the length of that period:
Provided that—

(a) in the case of an employer who is the freeholder of a berth or part of a port it does not exceed 100 years;
(b) in the case of an employer who is the leaseholder of a berth or a part of a port, it does not exceed the period for which the lease is current at the time of granting the licence;
(c) in all other cases, it is not less than three years, and not more than twenty-five years.
We had a major debate upon this question, and it is one on which the Opposition place the greatest importance. The need to provide the sort of length of licence so that employers who are serious and in business properly can have the confidence to make investments, sometimes very big ones, is of paramount importance in modernising our docks. I do not want to go over the arguments for the

Amendment, except to refer to some of the things which the hon. Lady said in Committee and to comment on them, and comment on the new form of the Amendment.
The Amendment is permissive only, as was the earlier one. There is nothing in it which would force a licensing authority to grant a long licence. It gives it power to do so if it thinks fit. One can imagine many sorts of specialist employers, who might bring great prosperity and trade to a port, wanting to set up in some corner of the port where they would be no bother to anyone else. However, before such an employer built a major installation, he would want the security of knowing that he could stay there and have a licence to employ dock labour for as long as necessary. So it will still be within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority to grant a long licence if it wishes to.
The hon. Lady said that, in some way, pressure would be brought on a licensing authority to make it grant licences for longer than it wished. I do not know if she has caught the habit of the Prime Minister of suspecting the presence of a Communist under every bed. It seems a strange idea that a licensing authority will give way to pressure in a matter of this sort when it does not mean to. Surely it will be strong enough to stand on its own judgment? I find this a hard argument to understand.
Secondly, the hon. Lady admitted that for many dock installations which have to be built the period of amortisation can be anything up to 75 or 100 years. Therefore, when an employer either owns a piece of dockland, or leases it, he must have the security of knowing that if he builds a new installation the lease and the licence will go on for as long as the investment is likely to be worth while.
There is a great need to protect leaseholders and freeholders. We have therefore made special provision in the Amendment that the freeholder can have up to 100 years if the licensing authority so decides, and that the leaseholder can have the period of his lease, which seems to us to make sense in the context of what we are trying to do.
The hon. Lady based her argument on the fact that if the licence was allowed


to run for only seven years, which is the maximum in the Bill, the employer who made a big investment would be compensated. With respect, I do not think that this meets the case. What will be the terms of compensation? This week the Government have published a Bill setting out terms of compensation which are nothing short of daylight robbery. We learn from the Bill that one-quarter of the asset value of the steel companies is all that the Government are offering. This is not the time to argue that, but, after a Bill of this kind, will people be encouraged to make long-term investments in the docks, knowing that they will get only one-quarter of the asset value of what they put in?

Mr. Kevin McNamara: This is a very interesting point that you are making.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not making any point.

Mr. McNamara: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point. The Amendment says:
The licensing authority shall specify the period for which the licence is granted and shall determine the length of that period:
Provided that … (b) in the case of an employer who is the leaseholder of a berth or part of a port it does not exceed the period for which the lease is current at the time o' granting the licence …
If there were a good employer, a splendid chap, the type of man that we want for the docks, with only six months of his lease to run, the licence to be granted would he for no more than six months. The hon. Gentleman's argument therefore seems to fall to the ground.

Mr. Ridley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his perspicacity as a draftsman, and I hope that as a result of the care with which he has read the Amendment he will be converted to the general point which I am trying to make. I think that the point made by the hon. Gentleman is invalidated by the fact that the licensing authority has jurisdiction in the matter, but there may well be a hole in the drafting of the Amendment. If there is, perhaps the hon. Lady can arrange for the matter to be dealt with in another place at a later stage if she

accepts the principle of what I am trying to do.
I do not believe that employers will put their whole energy, their whole working lives, and a lot of their own and other people's money into a dock investment project under the terms of this Bill. Seven years is all the security that is being offered. Whatever the size of the business, or whatever the type of business, I do not think that with the threat of nationalisation hanging over them, with the sword of Damocles being dangled over their heads, they will make the investment that we need. It will be a crying shame if, just when these vital investments are required, the Bill is so cramping and so restricting that it chokes off investment, while in another context the Government are trying hard to encourage it by offering 20 per cent. grants.
In Committee the hon. Lady was very forthcoming in admitting the strength of the case which my right hon. and hon. Friends made. Even one of her own hon. Friends—the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig)—supported us. We were kind enough not to carry the matter to a vote in Committee, and I am sorry to see that the hon. Member has taken great care not to be here on this occasion. However, when finally the bells ring, he will no doubt appear rather sheepishly in our Lobby.
The hon. Lady put up a had case against the Amendment. Looking behind her argument we realise that she is admitting that, sooner or later, the Government will nationalise the industry and that all that we have been trying to do in Committee to make this a good Bill—and all that employers, trade unionists and others engaged on dock work are going to do in the next few years—will be wasted and worthless. This is not the way to improve the situation in the docks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) also made a very telling point when he asked what would happen if a foreign syndicate or an American investment trust wanted to build a new major terminal in Europe to receive trans-Atlantic traffic. He asked whether that terminal would be situated in London, or in Rotterdam or Hamburg, or somewhere else on the Continent. With the restrictions imposed by


the Bill, and with the certainty of obtaining a licence for only seven years, we know what the answer is. It would not be built in London.
I warn the Government against becoming "Little Englanders". We are not legislating for the docks of Great Britain alone; we are legislating for docks which are in competition with other docks in Europe and all over the world. If we believe that we can carry on our economy from a little closed corner, or a little closed island, immune from the influence of outside economic forces, we are desperately wrong.
I may have drafted the Amendment badly. Nevertheless, I urge the hon. Lady to agree that she must provide for security of tenure and investment in the docks or she will not get the modernisation and improvement that we are all looking forward to. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to accept the principle of the Amendment in the same way as, in Committee, she said that we had a strong argument.

Mr. Webster: I support what my hon. Friend has said with some feeling of consistency, because in our proceedings on the Harbours Act. 1964, I led for the Conservative Opposition against Section 18, on the ground that great anxiety existed among many people who wanted to set up establishments within a harbour area because they thought that that Section might enable their establishments to be compulsorily acquired without any further legislation. Some of these people were very big industrialists—the owners of large oil refineries within the docks area—and they were very worried at the thought of having their very expensive installations compulsorily acquired.
The Amendment seeks to remove a similar anxiety that exists, as a result of which no one is likely to invest in the modernisation of our docks. There is no party politics about this argument; the one thing that we need in our docks is a long and steady investment in modernisation, because our docks were designed round about 1910, and most construction work in the docks ceased after the beginning of the First World War. Very few entry locks have been built since 1914. The same applies to installations.
There was anxiety over the 1964 Act. I say so openly, because I spoke against that Act in Standing Committee, much to the annoyance of my great friend, Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, who piloted the Bill through. Now there is another anxiety, for firms are not willing to invest in modern equipment if there is a risk that they might lose their investment and their position become even more precarious than they felt it was under the 1964 Act.

9.45 p.m.

If the wording is not precisely right, I hope that it will still be possible to meet the spirit of the Amendment and do something. The docks will not be improved if there is no security of tenure. It is the same in agriculture and in any venture where money is put at risk. People will not put money in unless there is security, and the assurance that it can be useful both for the improvement of labour relations and for the proper handling of equipment, and also that they can get some reward for their thrift and foresight. If they see no prospect of this, the chance of having efficient modernisation of the docks is slender.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) mentioned the docks in Antwerp and the Europort of Rotterdam. If we do not have an adequate security of investment in our docks in London and, I hope, in Bristol and Portbury, we shall simply be a shunting port for Antwerp and Rotterdam. This is desperately important for this country.

We shall no longer be a great ocean terminal. Those terminals will be in Europe and we will have the privilege of going in little boats to pick up the goods due to us. The prospect for our invisible earnings will be damaged. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to help us, in the spirit of the Amendment.

Sir Tatton Brinton: I should like to remind the hon. Lady of our discussions in Committee. She gave us some hope that she accepted to some extent the arguments which we put forward for a relaxation of this period. One of the things she said was:
I was looking recently at figures for the length of time given by the Port of London


Authority for amortising certain types of investment. In some cases the period was as long as 75 to 100 years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A; 16th June, 1966, c. 64.]
Out of the hon. Lady's own mouth, that underlines our point. As long as we are arguing on the basis of the Bill as it stands, it is an absurdity to suggest that an authority should have only the maximum power of seven years' licensing to offer to a heavy investor. As I said, the hon. Lady gave us a hint that perhaps she would be prepared to look at the Clause again, but now, on Report, we find that nothing has been done.
One of the points which was worrying the hon. Lady, understandably enough, was that any extension—we originally proposed an extension of 25 years—in the licensing period would become a standard, which would be regarded as the right of any employer. Anybody, whatever the type of his undertaking, might say, "The Bill promises 25 years: we ought to have it." I suggested then and repeat now that if the hon. Lady does not like the form of the Amendment, she should consider that it ought to be possible to legislate for two different types of employer—one, the kind who has no significant capital investment and the other the kind who has to invest heavily in modern plant and buildings.
An Amendment on those lines should be possible, if she will not accept what we are putting forward. We must distinguish between those employers, whom the hon. Lady had very much in mind, who are not investors of capital at all—or not to any great extent—and those who are and, increasingly in future, will be, heavy investors of capital. They must have some form of security. We are really talking in a vacuum because we know now that what we are discussing is liable to become somewhat irrelevant in the light of announced Government intentions. Nevertheless, we must press this point because we must deal with matters as they are and it is not certain that nationalisation will come about.

Mr. David Mitchell: I do not wish to detain the House. It may be said that Basingstoke is not a town with large docks and harbour facilities. Nevertheless, it is a town with growing export industries centred in it and it is important that these exports should be got away quickly and efficiently. This subject

is, therefore, of considerable concern to my constitueuncy.
Two vitally important factors are at work here and I fear that the Bill, good though many of its intentions are—and we wish many of its proposals all speed—will defeat its own objectives. I say that because of the overwhelming need to get greater investment in the modernisation of the docks and a great improvement in labour relations, with the elimination of restrictive practices. These are two objectives which, I am sure, the Minister will herself have very much in mind as being absolutely desirable ones.
If one is to put a limit of seven years on a licence, one will not find employers being prepared to spend large sums of money on modernising the docks and going in for the long-term work which must be done to secure the elimination of restrictive practices and the improvement of relations between employer and employee.
I hope, therefore, having heard the arguments of my hon. Friends, that the Minister will take a more flexible attitude about the length of time for which licences can be granted.

Mr. Peter Mahon: It is with reluctance that I rise, because I was not a member of the Committee upstairs. However, the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite should not go by default, because the prognostications and forebodings expressed by them are not valid.
Any hon. Member with experience of having worked some years ago in the docks knows the conditions that exist only too well and realises that one must consider not only the people who invest in a material manner, but those who invest by earning their daily bread in the docks. The forebodings expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the stevedoring authorities are not valid because, knowing that the writing was on the wall—that the docks have not been operating efficiently—the authorities have been whittling down their resources for a considerable time.
It is interesting to note, for example, that the number of stevedoring firms in Liverpool has been lessening considerably for some years. The stevedoring authorities know only too well what has been envisaged by the present Government for


the improvement of the docks. Because of these facts, I cannot agree with the statements that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because for a considerable time there has been a state of anarchy in the docks as a result of inefficient working.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken of the unanimity between employers and employees. They have also spoken of the cohesion that should exist during the next seven years, during which the docks will not be nationalised, and they have pointed out that this unanimity, cohesion and co-operation has not been in evidence for a long time. The older dock employees have by no means been getting a fair crack of the whip. The young docker, the man who can run fastest between one stevedoring authority and another, is the man who has been earning more wages.
The man who has spent most of a lifetime on the docks has been the victim of very unfortunate circumstances that have existed for so long. Change has become absolutely necessary. That has been evident for a long time. The dockers themselves have realised the deficiencies of the operating system, and the stevedoring authorities have known only too well that their days were numbered.
One hon. Member referred to the sword of Damocles. What he said in this connection is true to a very large extent. The dockers themselves have wondered how far this agony would be prolonged. The dockers invested the only thing they could invest in the docks—their labour—and if the employers were not anxious to avail themselves of the labour offered, the men were disregarded and not treated with the dignity that should be accorded to human beings. It is a bad and a wrong thing when a man cannot go to work and hang up his coat, knowing that he is welcome on the spot and that his employment will be valued—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I make no comment on what he has said except that he must relate what he has to say to the security of tenure and licence Amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Mahon: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Security of tenure is a

vital factor, and it is the security of tenure of the dock worker himself—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I imagined that the hon. Member intended to make that point. That is not the security we are talking about in this Amendment.

Mr. Mahon: I will try again.
I am not disposed to surrender—

Sir K. Joseph: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), would it be possible to remind him that we have yet to have the Third Reading of the Bill? This Amendment deals with a very technical point of investment in solid financial assets. Important though labour is, there will be ample time for the hon. Member to develop his point on Third Reading, if I may say so.

Mr. Mahon: I never like to foretell the future, Mr. Speaker. Life has so many uncertainties and vagaries that a Member with my experience is always apt to take opportunities as they present themselves—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I, too, am a philosopher. The hon. Gentleman is in a place where he must relate his remarks to the subject we are discussing.

Mr. Mahon: In view of all the difficulties and obstacles that are being placed in my way, I will avail myself of the advice given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).

Sir Edward Brown: I am glad to enter this discussion since the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) has made it quite clear that he was not a member of the Standing Committee. I think that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will be the first to admit that hon. Members on this side who served on the Committee gave considerable help with the progress of the Bill.
We were assured, at least by a very broad hint in Committee, that the Government would look again at the particular aspect dealt with in this Amendment. As we are asking for a great deal of investment to be made in the docks under the Bill, we should be able to give some assurance to these investors, who are to spend so much


money, that they will have continuity of tenure. Before we leave this Amendment, I should like the hon. Lady to tell us that she has this point clearly in mind.
As I say, the hon. Lady assured us in Committee that she would look at the matter again, but now that we have come to the Report stage we have had no statement from the Minister as to why she still relies on the very restricted period mentioned. This will only make for bad relationships in the docks.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Docks and Harbours Bill and the Motion relating to Hill Sheep may he entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting, at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of tie Bill.

Sir E. Brown: We are most disappointed that the Minister has not come forward with an Amendment to meet the point made in Committee which, I think, the Government knew we were stressing with great vehemence because we felt that there would be no response from the employers and workers with the threat of nationalisation overlaying the whole situation. I hope that at this late hour the hon. Lady can explain what is in mind, as she has not put forward an Amendment to cover this matter.

Mr. McNamara: I do not wish to delay the House, but it should be pointed out in all fairness that we on the Government side also gave considerable help to the Minister in getting the Bill through Committee. We have listened to a great many arguments which were just a repetition of arguments we heard in Committee and which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary defeated admirably, as I am sure she will defeat them tonight.
Someone mentioned the question of compensation in view of nationalisation. I assure hon. Members opposite that because of the history of our party the nationalisation terms will probably be over-generous. This is the record of this side of the House and events this

week have shown it to be so. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to advance the same arguments she advanced before, remembering that we also helped her to get the Bill.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: First, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) that I am sure that Providence will spare such a good man for another hour or two, and we look forward with great interest to hearing his views on Third Reading. I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that if he did not insist upon throwing a bouquet to the other side of the Committee I was going to do the same myself in response to the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) by saying that I think both sides of the Committee were extremely helpful in improving the Bill.
I recognise that this is an industry in which under-investment has been quite a serious feature for a very long time. We on this side of the House would not wish to discourage greater investment in the industry. It is for this reason that the first new Clauses were moved by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. As we all know, the Government are making 20 per cent. grants available to the industry for new investment. As we envisage it, it is likely on the experience of the past that a great deal of the investment in this industry will come from the port authorities. They, of course, will be free to make the investment in the way my hon. Friend indicated earlier.
Having said that I go on to say a word or two about what I said in Committee. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House who were in the Committee will recognise that when we discussed this matter I began by making clear why the Government felt that there was a very difficult balance to be kept between two considerations. The first was as hon. Members have pointed out, the need not to discourage investment. The second consideration, one which seems equally important to the Government, was the need not to freeze the organisation of employers in the docks at the stage which they might have reached at the first point of licensing.
I mean by that that one might get a process in which the licensing authority wished to look again at the numbers that had been licensed, in the light of the most efficient use of dock labour. In consequence, we wanted to ensure that the period was not so long before the licensing authority could have another look at the organisation that it in effect froze the position of the industry, as it has been frozen already for so long.
Indeed, it is the purpose of the Bill to get movement towards a more efficient type of organisation. Therefore, I said in Committee—I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not mind if I quote at this moment, because of the point made by the hon. Member for Bath:
… we cannot take away from the licensing authority the capacity to review the situation at the end of seven years. To do so would be to permit a continuance of the situation in the docks which the Bill seeks to cure"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 16th June, 1966, c. 63.]
I went on to urge the Committee to reject the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Leeds. North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
The right hon. Gentleman then came back and made a further plea that the Government should look at it again. It was a powerful plea. In the light of that plea I promised, as is mad:: clear in col. 66, that we would take the matter back and look at it, though even at that stage I pointed out again that I did not think that the right hon. Gentleman's case had met the argument I had already made in terms of the licensing authority's power to reduce the number of employers.
We took the matter back. We have looked at it very carefully indeed. I am afraid that I must now report to the House that we are not able to meet the right hon. Gentleman on it. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not because we have not looked very carefully into the matter. We believe that there are two positions which will offer security to the good employer. The first of these is the security which would be his by the fact that his licence is renewable. We would hope that any port authority would regard a good employer, particularly one who had an eye to modernising the industry, as a very satisfactory candidate for renewal.
Secondly, I would point out that should an employer's licence not be renewed, an event which I would imagine would be most unusual in the situation of the type of employer we are talking about—

Sir K. Joseph: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being, I think, most helpful. Is she addressing her mind to the sort of case we have in mind where there has been a specialist and large investment—let us say, a cold store or some such specialist terminal equipment? Her words about good employers are relevant to all employers. We are talking about the good and investing employer. Is she addressing her remarks to that situation?

Mrs. Williams: I was, in fact, addressing my remarks to that situation, because I had in mind on this Clause the employer who had shown a real willingness to modernise the industry. I was not talking at this point about the wider question of what constitutes a good employer.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) raised what must be, from the point of view of his side of the House, the horrible phantom, as he must see it, of compensation for a nationalised industry. I make it clear that we are talking in the Bill about the present situation, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) made very clear.
In this situation, the terms of compensation are clearly laid down in Clause 13. They are there defined in terms of the difference between the market value of a business before a licence was renewed and after it failed to be renewed. The hon. Gentleman should turn up Clause 13 and he will then be satisfied that the phantom he has envisaged does not exist.

Mr. Ridley: In that case, could we have the same terms for steel?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady would be out of order if she answered that question.

Mrs. Williams: I should perhaps thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems only polite to do so.
The broad situation is that in terms of renewal and in terms of compensation the Bill, as it stands, already meets a substantial part of the case put forward by the Opposition.
I want now to look a little more closely at one or two aspects of the Amendment. I have already made the point that the Government's view is that effective control must be exercised at fairly regular intervals. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who seems to be a in a ghost story mood tonight, also produced the fear of pressures which might be brought to bear on the licensing authority. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that there is the very genuine view that, if one sets a maximum period, which, in this case, will be 25 years for one group and a very much longer period for two other groups—the freeholder and the leaseholder— there is a tendency to ask the licensing authority to explain in detail why it has given a licence for a much shorter period.
Therefore, there will be, without regard to any sinister pressures, a tendency for a licensing authority to give a licence for the maximum period laid down, unless it believes that it will have to phase out an employer, and clearly one does not want to create a sense of insecurity where none is necessary. For this reason, we believe that the 25-year maximum laid down in the Opposition Amendment would become the usual length of time. We feel, however, that 25 years is too long a time for an industry which needs to reorganise fairly rapidly but in some ports in phased stages.

Sir T. Brinton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Why would it not be possible to lay down seven years as the normal period, but in special instances, with perhaps the consent of the Minister, to allow a longer period for a licence with special consent, this to cover the special cases which we have in mind where heavy investment is involved? This would indicate that seven years was the normal period for the virtually non-investing employer, while still allowing the same discretion to the licensing authority to give a sensible licence to a heavy investor, which we regard as absolutely essential.

Mrs. Williams: The point is not an unfair one, but it is not what the Amendment says. The Amendment says:
… in all other cases, it is not less than three years, and not more than twenty-five years.
It does not specify the cases to which 25 years should apply. I have pointed

out the reasons why I do not believe the licensing authority would be able to operate this type of difference which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir T. Brinton: I am, again, most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am sorry if this is becoming an across-the-court argument. I have suggested that the licensing authority should be limited to seven years. I know that it is not in our Amendment, but we have been forced to put the Amendment down because the hon. Lady would not meet similar points which we raised in Committee. We still press her.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may intervene only on the Amendment before us.

Mrs. Williams: With regard to the position of leaseholders, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) punched something of a hole in this part of the Amendment. With due mercy to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who gracefully pointed out—and I say the same for myself—that he was not a Parliamentary draftsman, I hope that he will not object to my trying to make the hole a little larger. The difficulty is that, as drafted, the Amendment would leave it the case that a leaseholder, however excellent, whose lease was about to expire or which expired six months or a year or two years after the period in which Clause I came into being, would, as the Amendment stands, only be entitled to a licence to cover the balance of the lease. This is a position which would be extremely arbitrary and unfair as between one leaseholder and another.
With regard to the position of a freeholder, a different anomaly but an equally serious one arises. This is the position which is expressed in the Amendment where it refers to
a berth or part of a port".
This would create an extraordinary situation in which we might have the freeholder who had the freehold of a shed or something equally small on a dock and who, under the terms of the Amendment, would have a licence in perpetuity to that freehold. Furthermore "a part of a port" is a difficult thing to define and is not defined in the Amendment.
The real point about leaseholders and freeholders is that they would—once again, I revert to the point—freeze the pattern of a port which would make the licensing authority's position difficult. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury pointed out that in many cases the licensing authority would also be the authority that granted a lease. But, I would point out, not in all cases. In some cases the harbour authority or port authority is not also the licensing authority. An instance which would be familiar to the hon. Gentleman is that of the Tyne Improvement Commission, which is likely to be the licensing authority but is a different body from the port authorities which it comprises.
For all these reasons—for the main argument that I have advanced and the two more specific difficulties which arise with regard to leaseholders and freeholders—I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: We have not had the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, with us in the House for long, but we already recognise that she has a sharp mind and a very nice smile. But this evening she has missed the point altogether.
As my hon. Friends have been arguing very cogently, the country is in grave danger of losing a great deal of investment from home and abroad, and a great deal of its entrepôt trade, if the Bill goes through as at present drafted. We are not defending every word or line of our Amendment. If the Government say that they accept in principle that longer licences should be possible in suitable cases, we shall gladly withdraw the Amendment and rely on the Government to introduce the necessary Amendment in another place.
The hon. Lady criticised, no doubt soundly, the details of the Amendment. We do not stand on the details, but on the principle that it should be possible for a licensing authority to grant in certain instances, where it is appropriate, a licence longer than seven years. No argument that the hon. Lady has produced this evening will cut any ice with the investor, whether British or foreign, who is contemplating a dock investment

and trying to decide where to place it. No one of her arguments about the possible security or renewal of licence after seven years will be in the least persuasive, as against the alternative ports where there will be 25 or 50 year licences from the word "go".
I ask the hon. Lady, with all the seriousness that I can command, to reexamine this with her colleagues. Goodness knows, the Government are worried enough—quite rightly—about the balance of payments. If the Government expect to be in power in a few years' time, they will bitterly regret their decision this evening if they do not reconsider the Amendment and its principle.
The hon. Lady has relied on the argument of balance, and we agree with her that there must be a balance. A port authority must be in a position to avoid the danger of the port getting ossified. We quite agree about that, but it has the power to revoke a licence, and it can use that power if necessary. If an installation becomes obsolete, which is the danger of ossification, then the investor himself will be glad enough to close it, or to run it down. Therefore, the first part of the argument of balance—that the port must keep control—does not damage our argument that in suitable cases, and only in suitable cases, the licensing authority should be free to grant a longer licence than seven years.
The second limb of the balance argument, which the hon. Lady put forward in Committee but not this evening, is that in certain ports there will still be a need to run down the number of employers further, after the Bill comes into operation. We fully agree, but that will be true only in a limited number of ports. The hon. Lady could accept the principle of the Amendment, and make special provision for a reduced period of licence in those few ports where there will still be an excess of employers. She can retain her balance without refusing to accept the principle of the Amendment.
I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I repeat that the hon. Lady's arguments will carry no weight with either the British investor deciding whether to continue, or to enter upon, an association with the dock industry, or an overseas enterprise deciding whether


to place a terminal in Britain or in Europe They will want to know from the beginning how long a licence—that is, definite security of tenure—they will have. 'They will not be interested in the possibility that at the end of seven years they may or may not get a renewal.

Mr. Anthony Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that someone in the Official Box wants to give a brief to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that it will only be crick et if I take a few minutes now to allow the Parliamentary Secretary time.
The point that I am making is, in brief, that if the Government adhere to this quite small, but very important, point of resistance that they are offering, the country is in danger of becoming a mere secondary line in world shipping routes. The country is in danger of losing a considerable portion of its entrepot trade. The Government could protect all the interests that they wish legitimately to protect while still conceding the principle of the Amendment.
If the hon. Lady tells us that she will reconsider the position with a view to introducing in another place a more suitable Amendment covering our principle, we will withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press it to a Division.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should like to make two comments in reply to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). The first is that this has not been an industry which has attracted much investment in recent years, for the reason that it has been an industry whit o is far too widely spread and in which there have been too many small and, in many cases, undercapitalised firms battling with one another. The operation of the Bill is so to reorganise the industry that it can be in a position to attract investment. We believe, however, that this process will be possible only if the licensing authority has power to see that reorganisation through. This is the reason, as I have said before, why we do not believe that the 25 years' upper limit is acceptable.
Secondly, it is clear in this industry there must, for the time being at least, be massive assistance from the Government to supplement the investment of private employers. It is for this reason that the 20 per cent. grants have been made available. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman has made a strong case, he has made it for a position which has not in the recent past applied, and is not likely in the near future to apply, to the industry that is under discussion this evening.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 110.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[10.22 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Alldritt, Walter
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
English, Michael


Archer, Peter
Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fernyhough, E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Coe, Denis Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bence, Cyril
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forrester, John


Bessell, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Fowler, Gerry


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Freeson, Reginald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boardman, H.
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Gardner, A. J.


Booth, Albert
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Garrow, Alex


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dewar, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bradley, Tom
Dickens, James
Gourlay, Harry


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dobson, Ray
Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Brooks, Edwin
Doig, Peter
Gregory, Arnold


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunnett, Jack
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle upon-Tyne, W)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Hamling, William




Hannan, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rose, Paul


Harper, Joseph
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Henig, Stanley
Mapp, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mason, Roy
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Slater, Joseph


Howie, W.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Small, William


Hoy, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Neal, Harold
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stan
Stonehouse, John


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian
Symonds, J. B.


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orme, Stanley
Thornton, Ernest


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bit & St. P'cras, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Urwin, T. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Varley, Eric G.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Park, Trevor
Wainwright, Richard (Cottle Valley)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, David (Consett)


Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Price Christopher (Perry Barr)
Whitlock, William


Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Probert, Arthur
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Randall, Harry
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rankin, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McBride, Neil
Rees, Merlyn
Winterbottom, R. E.


McCann, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Macdonald, A. H.
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Walter Harrison.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)





NOES


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nott, John


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Irvine, Bryant
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Campbell, Gordon
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roots, William


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Flt. Hn. Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Crouch, David
K irk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Ian (Ptsm'th, Langstone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveys, W. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Walters, Denis


Farr, John
Madden, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)



Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro. Sir Gerald
Mr. R. W. Elliot and


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. David Mitchell.



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Clause 6.—(NOTIFICATION OF DECISIONS.)

10.30 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 7, line 13, to leave out "before" and to insert "after".
This is what one might describe as a small touch of "Alice in Wonderland". Such things do sometimes overtake Measures coming before the House, and the purpose of the Amendment is simply to correct an unfortunate error in the Clause.

Sir K. Joseph: We do not want to interfere with this major alteration, but I must ask the hon. Lady whether, in the vast and dingy hierarchy of Government legislation, there has ever been a longer sentence. There are no fewer than 209 words in it, and it can be understood, I suggest, only if set to music. But we agree that, within that very long sentence, the word should be
after" and not "before".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(RENEWAL OF LICENCES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 11, line 44, to leave out "year" and to insert "two years".
We return now to an argument which we had in Committee about the time before the date of expiry of a licence within which the licensee shall have the right to apply for renewal. We quite understand that the Government cannot accept our original request that the period should be the three years preceding the expiry of the licence because, with any three-year licence, the application for renewal could be made on the day the licence began.
On the other hand, we ask the Government to concede that it makes for good planning if a licensee has a reasonable chance to plan ahead by knowing whether or not he will obtain a renewal of his licence. We hope that, since most of the licences will fall between the three and seven-year extremes, a two-year application period will be a compromise which the Government can accept.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has seen the difficulty which

would arise with the three-year period, but we acknowledge the point he makes about reasonable time for application. I recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(VARIATION AND REVOCA- TION OF CONDITIONS OF, AND SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF, LICENCES.)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 12, line 32, to leave out from "that" to "of" in line 33 and to insert:
there has been a serious or persistent failure on the part of the holder of the licence to comply with one or more of the conditions".
This Amendment meets a point which was made by the Opposition side in Committee, and which, I think, raised no differing opinion on the Government side. It is to change the definition of failure on the part of a holder of a licence to comply with the conditions of the licence. Instead of saying, as the Clause does, failure
to comply with any condition
we propose that it should be
serious or persistent failure on the part of the holder of the licence to comply with one or more of the conditions
for which the penalty would be revocation of the licence. It would also cater for minor breaches of the licence, but we feel that revocation of licence should take place only for serious breaches, and that for minor breaches there should be equivalently minor penalties.

Sir K. Joseph: We are grateful to the hon. Lady and to the Government for this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(COMPENSATION FOR RE- FUSAL, ETC., OF LICENCE.)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 16, to leave out lines 28 to 31.
This is one of a group of Amendments concerning the question of the two-year registration condition and the possibility of an employer coming to the business in order simply to acquire compensation. In other words, this is


to try to meet the difficulty which arose in the original Bill and was pointed out by one or two hon. Members in Committee—from both sides, I think—over the phrase about continuous registration. Clearly, if there is continuous registration over two years during which the qualifying period of work, which is laid down, has to be reached within this continuous period of two years, an employer who for some minor breach of the regulations was suspended for a matter of a few days would not be able to satisfy this condition in regard to the continuous period of registration, Therefore, this also would be a disproportionate penalty for what might have been merely a minor suspension of a day or two.
There is also the other difficulty, for an employer who comes into the industry with a genuine desire to contribute to the industry and to be a good employer, that as the Bill stands it would make it not possible for such an employer to be compensated. It is our view that he should be able to be compensated should he have come into the industry on a perfectly genuine basis. We believe that the type of employer who comes in solely with an eye to compensation would be the type of employer who would not invest enough in the business to justify any compensation at all.
I wonder if we can take at the same time the Government Amendments No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 20 and No. 43?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House wishes, but they must be moved separately, though that can be done formally.

Mrs. Williams: The further point which rises is in Clause 14 (1, a). Amendment No. 5 would delete this particular provision about registration. I am trying to make clear, on what is, I am afraid, a very complicated group of Amendments, that the condition with regard to the period under which the labour force must have been employed in terms of hours stands, but the condition regarding the 104-week period during which this must take place falls, and, therefore, this will make it possible to deal with the employer and also deal

with the case of somebody suspended for a brief period. Therefore we are dropping the first condition.
Amendment No. 8 merely rewrites subsection (4) which, as it stands, safeguards the position of an employer who amalgamated with another employer during the period between the introduction of licensing. The employer can count the period which was required before the business was amalgamated towards the qualifying period. This is again an important Amendment, because we wish to encourage amalgamations, and a great many have been taking place.
Generally, the dropping of the earlier condition is one which will commend itself to the House, because it will make the position in equity a fairer one in terms of the employer who arrives in the industry within the two-year period and the employer who, for some technical reason, may have been suspended for a short time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 5, in page 16, line 37, leave out from "has to "or" in line 41 and insert:
as a registered employer employed dock workers in the port in question for some time during each of not less than eighty weeks during the qualifying period".
No. 6, in page 17, line 2, leave out from beginning to first "is" in line 3 and insert:
'the qualifying period ' means the period of one hundred and four weeks ending with whichever of the following dates".
No. 46, in line 5, after "made", insert:
or a person who was both a registered employer and a registered dock worker".
No. 7, in line 6, after "Act", insert "the date of".

No. 8, in line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) If within the qualifying period the dock business of any person has been transferred by agreement or operation of law to another person, the person in whom it is vested at the end of that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if he had been a registered employer on those days on which any person in whom the business was vested during that period was a registered employer and as if he had employed the dock workers employed in the business on any of those days or, as the case may be, as if he had done any


work on any of those days by any registered employer in whom the business was then vested.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Clause 16.—(DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.)

Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 37, at end insert:

(6) In relation to an arbiter appointed under subsection (4) of this section the following provisions shall apply—

(a) any arbiter so appointed shall have the like powers for securing the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and with regard to the examination of witnesses on oath and the awarding of expenses, as if the arbitration were under a submission;
(b) the arbiter may, and if so directed by the Court of Session shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the proceedings; and
(c) any award of an arbiter so appointed in pursuance of this section may be recorded in the Books of Council and Session for execution, and may be enforced accordingly.—[Mr. Shirley Williams.]

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the hon. Lady not going to tell us anything about this Amendment No. 9? It is not one of the last series.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought you said Amendment No. 8. I did not intend at this stage to move Amendment No. 9.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. I thought that we were taking Amendments Nos. 20 and 43 with the present group. Is it your intention to put those from the Chair now, because then my hon. Friend will move Amendment No. 9?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can only do that when we come to them in their order on the Order Paper. Mrs. Williams.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I expected you to continue with the Amendments which went with the group. Now I am ready to move Amendment No. 9.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. This is an outstanding example of the way that confusion arises when a large number of formal Amendments are taken separately. Why cannot they be taken together?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. For the hon. Gentleman's information, Amendments must be taken in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, anyway.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady has not told us what this Amendment is about. She moved it formally, she then said that she did not propose to move it, and now she has moved it formally again. Can she tell us what this deals with?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I apologise to the House. I was trying to take back what I had said earlier when I was expecting the group of Amendments to be put to the House.
It would be a great sorrow to hon. Members representing Scotland were it not possible to move this Amendment which relates the provisions of this Clause to the arbitration provisions of Scottish law. As I understand it, under Scottish law the Arbitration Act, 1950, does not automatically apply to arbitration proceedings under this Clause, and the purpose of the Amendment is to make parallel provision for Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(LEVY ON LICENSED EMPLOYERS.)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, Amendment No. 10, in page 19, line 14, to leave out "payment" and to insert:
sums so paid, together with a reasonable amount in respect of interest thereon from the date of payment".
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may we take with that Amendment the following Government Amendments: Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is convenient to the House, so be it.

Mrs. Williams: These Amendments attempt to meet a point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), that the arrangements for the contribution of the levy on licensed employers which could be imposed under the terms of the original Bill, did not fully reflect the


division of business as a result of these licensing arrangements.
These Amendments attempt to meet the point that was made with regard to a different basis upon which the levy should be based. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition would like to see the levy based on a period of up to five years on payment of gross wages. The Government's view is that this is too long a period, because it might lead to a suspension of the licensing operation for that period while the sum is being assessed, and it will lead to postponements and complications in the licensing process, which, for reasons which have been made clear, we are most anxious not to have.
The purpose of these Amendments is to meet the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman wished the levy to rest, and to shorten the period from 5 years to 12 months, during which time we think that it will be possible to assess the basis of the redistribution of business.
It is our view that during the first year after which the licensing has come into force there should be a fairly rapid emergence of the way in which business will be redistributed among those employers who are licensed, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will possibly have accepted this point, because in moving the argument for a two-year period and requesting renewal, they must, preliminary to their argument, have accepted that within a year it would be possible for the licensing authority to assess the business which will go to an employer. For this reason we think that one year should be sufficient, and it will be the case, therefore, that the levy will be based on the gross wages paid during this 12-month period.
There are certain other matters which associate themselves with this. If an employer wants to have his licence revoked during this period, he will have to pay the levy in proportion to the gross wages paid by him during the period he was in business, but not for the period after his licence is revoked. Similarly, if a business changes hands during this period, the purchaser of the business will be liable for the levy, but this will be reflected in the purchase price since it will be recognised that the levy is being drawn up in this way.
We have in Amendment No. 18 defined what we mean by gross wages and as, at present, the returns are normally rendered weekly by all registered employers to the Dock Labour Board, it will be possible to check any returns against these and there should not be any great complications in moving to this different basis of levy.
This Amendment is consequential, but it arises from the fact that the licensing authority may have to borrow money in order to make compensation payments, and because of the 12-month period there may be some delay in assessing for levy. The Amendment makes it possible, in assessing the levy, for interest which may be payable on any loan to the licensing authority to be borne by the levy when it is finally drawn up. If we are going to make this type of provision for assessing for levy it is necessary to compensate the Board for any period of time which may elapse as a result of that new basis of levy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is an attempt to meet the point he made in Committee and will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: We thank the hon. Lady very much. She has met our point handsomely and fairly in every respect, and we quite see this disadvantage in the five-year period as against the one-year period that has been put in instead. It is a matter of gratification that this point, which has involved a great deal of drafting and deep thought, should have been dealt with so adequately by the Government. It has made a great improvement in the Bill and we are most grateful to the hon. Lady. We accept the Amendment with pleasure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 11, in page 19, line 16, leave out "on the relevant date" and insert:
at the end of the relevant period.
The aggregate of the sums so paid and of the said amount of interest is hereafter in this section referred to as the potential amount of the levy.
(2) A person whose licence is revoked during the relevant period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if the licence were in force at the end of that period".

No. 12, in line 22, leave out from "date" to end of line 24 and insert:
of the decision to impose the levy".

No. 13, in line 33, leave out from "the" to end of line 39 and insert:
total amount of gross wages paid by him during the relevant period to registered dock workers employed by him in the port in question and shall bear the same proportion to the potential amount of the levy as the total amount of those wages bears to the total amount of gross wages paid by all registered employers during that period in the port to registered dock workers employed by them there.
(5) If during the relevant period the dock business of any person has been transferred by agreement or by operation of law to another person, the person in whom it is vested at the end of that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if he had employed in the port in question the dock workers employed there in the business during that period and had paid the wages paid to them during that period".

No. 14, in line 44, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 9 on page 20 and insert:

(a) the potential amount of the levy, showing separately the amounts of compensation or interest paid, of any costs and expenses paid, and of any interest on any such payments;
(b) the total amount of the gross wages paid during the relevant period in the port in question by all registered employers to registered dock workers employed by them there, the total amount of the gross wages paid during that period by the person on whom the notice is served to registered dock workers employed by him there and the proportion which the latter amount bears to the former;
(c) the total amount of the gross wages paid during that period by the licensing authority lo registered dock workers employed by it in the port in question;
(d) the amount of the levy to be paid by the person on whom the notice is served and the share of the potential amount of the levy which is to be borne by the licensing authority. —[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 20, line 15, at the end to insert:
(6) If it appears to the licensing authority that any amount specified in a notice served on any person under the last foregoing subsection has been incorrectly calculated, the licensing authority may by a subsequent notice served on that person correct the amount so specified.

This Amendment is consequential upon the previous Amendment. It meets the case where there may be some clerical or arithmetical error, which may arise from the slightly more complicated basis of compensation which the House accepted in the last group of Amend-

ments, and I hope it will be so recognised and accepted by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 16, in page 20, line 23, leave out "date" and insert "period".

No. 17, in line 28, after "thereto", insert:
the period of twelve months beginning with".

No. 18, in line 32, after "thereto", insert:
the period of twelve months beginning with".

No. 19, in line 32, at end insert:
and the amount of any gross wages paid by a registered employer during any period shall be taken for the purposes of this section to be the amount specified in the return of such wages made by him to the local board in pursuance of any labour scheme"—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Clause 19.—(CERTIFICATES.)

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 20, line 36, leave out "(a) or (b)".

No. 21, in line 38, to leave out from "Board" to "and" in line 40 and to insert:
as to the total amount of gross wages paid by any person during the relevant period within the meaning of the last foregoing section to registered dock workers employed by him in any port".—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Clause 25.—(WELFARE AMENITY SCHEMES.)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, Amendment No. 22, in page 22, line 28 to leave out from "maintenance" to "port" in line 30 and to insert:
whether by registered employers or by harbour authorities in the port, of such welfare amenities as the Board thinks ought to be provided and maintained for that".
The Amendment makes the point that the Dock Labour Board should be able to decide which welfare amenities are appropriate to which ports. As the subsection stands, it could mean that the Board would have to provide every one of the welfare amenities listed later for every one of the ports in the scheme. It is clearly sense that the Board should not have to introduce protective clothing in ports which do not handle cargoes involving its use.
There is, of course, a clear guarantee that, wherever such amenities are required, they will be introduced, because


of the fact that the schemes are drawn up by the local boards, and there are now strong powers in force for these boards, which represent both sides of the industry. In consequence, the House may be assured that welfare amenities will be provided where they are necessary. The Amendment is designed to avoid absurd situations like the one which I mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 22 to leave out line 33 and to insert:
or, in the case of a supply of protective clothing, the persons for whom any such amenity is to be provided and in any case the time within which it is to be provided; and

(b) in relation to any amenity required to be provided within a specified area, may require the person who is to provide and maintain it to ensure that a suitable person is in attendance at specified times at the place where it is provided.

(2) In deciding the area within which welfare amenities of any description are to be provided under a welfare amenity scheme, the Board shall secure so far as possible that those amenities are conveniently accessible to the persons who in the Board's opinion are likely to use them".
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we took with this Amendment, Amendments No. 24 and No. 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that that would be convenient.

Mrs. Williams: The purpose of the Amendment is to meet the suggestions in Committee of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller). The Amendments would bring within the purview of welfare provisions the provision of protective clothing, and would provide that any amenity should be in a place convenient for dock workers and that an amenity block, where suitable, should have an attendant.
The Amendments meet the need for making welfare provisions as full as possible where they are required, and as convenient as possible for the use of dock workers, and, where it is thought suitable by the Board, giving the Board the power to provide an attendant. These welfare provisions come under the General Dock Regulations of 1934 which deal with safety matters. Therefore, although per-

sonal protective equipment must be provided, the Amendments make it clear that it would not be provided where it was not made necessary by the kind of cargo handled and would be left to the discretion of the local board.
Essentially, these are permissive powers. We hope that they will be used by the local boards where they are necessary and make for the greater convenience of dock workers.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 35, leave out "the foregoing subsection" and insert "subsection (1) of this section".—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

11.0 p.m.

Clause 30.—(FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WELFARE AMENITY SCHEMES.)

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 26, line 9, after "section", insert:
and section (Revocation of licence on failure to comply with welfare amenity scheme) of this Act".—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, Amendment No. 25, in line 12, to leave out "£60" and to insert "£200".
This Amendment merely increases the maximum penalty which can be applied in the case of failure to comply with welfare and amenity schemes. It increases it from £60 to £200 and meets a point raised in Committee by a number of hon. Members. It was considered that this maximum would be more appropriate. I stress that it is the maximum figure. It will be our object, as soon as possible, to increase the maximum penalty for comparable offences under the Factories Act to the same sum to bring them both into line.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34.—(MEANING OF EXPRESSION "WELFARE AMENITIES".)

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 28, line 4, at end insert:
(e) supply of protective clothing, that is to say, clothing suitable for the protection of the wearer against inclement weather or against dirt from handling dirty cargoes.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, Amendment No. 27, in line 8, to leave out "or" and to insert "and".
This Amendment changes one word "or" to "and"—although it is more important than may be at first apparent. It makes it possible for welfare schemes to include the provision of a canteen and mess room in which dockers may, if they wish, eat the food which they have brought with them. It does not make it obligatory, only possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35.—(POWER OF HARBOUR AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE INLAND CLEARANCE DEPOTS.)

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, Amendment No. 28, in page 28, line 16, after "or" to insert:
with the consent of the Minister".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 3l.

Mr. Swingler: That would be convenient. The Amendments are designed to fulfil a promise given in Committee, when it was stated that the provision of inland clearance depots at places elsewhere than on harbour land should be on Ministerial land. The following three Amendments, Nos. 29, 30 and 31, apply the same provision, requiring Ministerial consent where a harbour authority participates in a business which provides inland clearance depots.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36.—(POWER OF HARBOUR AUTHO- RITIES TO ACQUIRE A HARBOUR BUSI- NESS OR SHARES IN A HARBOUR BUSINESS.)

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 29, line 4, at beginning insert:
Subject to the provisions of this section".

No. 30, in line 12, at beginning insert "Subject as aforesaid".

No. 31, in line 17, at end insert:
(3) A harbour authority shall not by virtue of this section acquire a business or undertaking which consists of or includes the provision, maintenance or operation of any such depot, or subscribe for or acquire any securities of a body corporate which is engaged or which it is proposed should become engaged in providing, maintaining or operating any such depot, with out the consent of the Minister.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 48.—(REFERENCES OF DISPUTES ABOUT MEANING OF "DOCK WORK" TO A TRIBUNAL.)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, Amendment No. 32, in page 36, line 30, to leave out from "Board" to "and" in line 35 and to insert:
or a licensing authority that there is a dispute between the Board or the licensing authority, as the case may be, and any other person about a question to which this section applies, or it appears to any person other than the Board or a licensing authority that there is such a dispute between him and the Board or a licensing authority about such a question".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would it be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendments No. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a rather complicated matter which, basically, concerns the type of dispute which can be referred to an industrial tribunal. Under the Clause as drafted it would be possible to refer a dispute only between the Board and an employer. This series of Amendments would permit the reference of disputes between the Board or licensing authority and any other person.
Perhaps the best instance one could give of the need for this Amendment is exemplified by the recent dispute on the Tyne between two unions as to what constituted dock work. That was clearly not a dispute between an employer and a union, but between a trade union and another party. This alteration to the Bill would allow that type of dispute to be referred to an industrial tribunal. There is a rapidly changing nature in dock work as new types of mechanised equipment are brought into the ports, and the question of a definition of dock work can be very complex in some cases which involve parties not concerned with what is commonly known as dock work at all.
The Amendment also refers to disputes which might arise between a licensing authority and another person. There might, for example, be a dispute about dock work in the context of licensing because of the dock labour scheme. Perhaps, to give a possible instance, as a dock was extended, what was dock work could be the subject of an argument and the question of licensing of employers


could arise. This matter could then be referred to a tribunal.
The second main effect of this Amendment is to meet criticism from some hon. Members opposite, and that is that an employer should not be denied access to a board if the union has not stated a case. What we are now doing means that he could go to the board without any further delay.
The third reason for the Amendment has a bearing on tribunals, and remedies an omission in this Clause as it stands. The dock labour scheme can apply only to workers in a port, or in the vicinity of the port, and there has been dispute at times about what is meant by "vicinity". Under this Amendment, matters which arise in whatever part of the port can be referred to a tribunal.
I should like to make it clear that all this is a fairly free alteration in the powers of tribunals, and it may be that we should wish to consider this group of Amendments further with both sides of the dock industry. If so, the Government are prepared to put down a more suitable Amendment in another place in order to meet any difficulties. At this stage, we should prefer, however, to err on the side of generosity in order that a tribunal should be open to as many people as possible who might wish to refer matters to them.

Mr. Ridley: We welcome these Amendments. They go further than the point which I raised when I urged the hon. Lady in Committee to remember that it should not only be the board which could refer a dispute to a tribunal. This widening of access, if I may put it that way, is a great improvement and is, as she has said, a matter of some importance. It is important in that this is the first time there has been a tribunal to decide what is dock work and what is not. When one is dealing with so restricted a class of work as dock labour, hedged about as it is by boards, and regulations, and Acts of Parliament and, one might add, by restrictive practices, it is necessary to have a fair way of deciding what work comes within one definition and what is within another. The hon. Lady, responding to our prod-dings in Committee, has greatly im-

proved her own Clause with this Amendment.
She mentioned the dispute on the Tyne. I entirely agree that if anything in this Clause as it now will be could have helped to have avoided that dispute the whole House would have been the more pleased. Whether the hon. Lady feels that the mere definition of a certain class of work as dock work and not any other sort of work would have automatically convinced the two unions that it was so is a slightly further assumption for her to make than, perhaps, is borne out by the facts. It does not necessarily follow that even if a tribunal classifies work as dock work that classification would be accepted by the unions which, in this case, were parties to the dispute.
This is a very interesting extension of the work of the Industrial Training Act tribunals into this completely new field of, as it were, demarcation settlement and industrial dispute. It might well be the forerunner of a great development of this sort of idea of providing immediate and quick access to a tribunal or to some form of arbitration which could well spread into other forms of industry. It is an interesting experiment, as well as a welcome one. We wish the whole conception of the tribunal well in its desire to define dock work, and we accept these Amendments because we think that they make the Clause altogether better.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 33, in page 36, line 38, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 42 and insert:
and
(b) there has been no previous reference of that question the decision on which is binding under this section on the person to whom it appears as aforesaid;
the question may be referred by the last-mentioned person".

No. 34, in line 44, at end insert:

(2) This section applies to the following questions, that is to say—

(a) whether any work is dock work;
(b) whether any place is in, or in the vicinity of, a port to which a labour scheme for the time being applies.

No. 35, in page 37, line 1, leave out "such question as aforesaid" and insert:
question to which this section applies".

No. 36, in line 4, leave out from "if" to "stay" and insert:
there has been no previous reference of that question the decision on which is binding under this section on both parties to the proceedings".

No. 37, in line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert:

(3) In addition to the parties to the dispute or proceedings, the following persons may appear and be heard before the tribunal on reference under this section:—

(a) the Board
(b) the licensing authority for the port in question;
(c) where the question referred is whether work of any description is dock work, any person who employs others on work of that description and any person employed on such work;
(d) where the question referred is whether any place is in, or in the vicinity of, a port, any person who employs others or works at that place.

(4) The tribunal's decision on any reference under this section shall be binding on the following persons:—

(a) the parties to the dispute or proceedings which occasioned the reference;
(b) the Board
(c) the licensing authority for the port in question;
(d) any other persons entitled to appear and be heard on the reference who did so appear:
(e) any court which or sheriff who referred the question to the tribunal and any court of quarter sessions having cognizance of the matter on appeal from any magistrates' court which so referred the question;


but the foregoing provision shall not preclude any of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of this subsection from challenging the decision on a subsequent reference under this section by any person not so mentioned or by any court.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Clause 49.—(INQUIRIES.)

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 37, line 27, at end insert:
and
(b) any proposal to exercise his power to revoke a licence under section (Revocation of licence on failure to comply with welfare amenity scheme) of this Act".

No. 39, in line 32, after "appeal", insert "or objection".—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 38, line 37, leave out first "the" and insert "any such."

This Amendment merely brings the wording into line with the rest of the subsection.

Mr. Ridley: I think that this Amendment should be made in line 38, and not in line 37. Line 37 has in it only the word "inquiry", and I do not quite see how one can leave out the first "the" from a line containing only that one word. We on this side would be delighted to facilitate any means by which the Amendment could be made in the right line, whichever line that may be.

11.15 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am a little confused because my copy of the Bill reads at page 38, line 37;
relation to the inquiry from all or any of the following".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment on the Notice Paper is correct.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 39, line 8, at the end to insert:
(7) Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement imposed by regulations made by virtue of paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.
This Amendment merely brings the whole Clause into line with objections raised by the Council on Tribunals on the penalties for failing to comply with regulations in proceedings for inquiries. It provides comparable penalties to the normal penalties in this type of inquiry.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 39, line 19, at the end to insert:
(9) The Minister shall not authorise the recovery of any expenses incurred by him as a result of an inquiry held under this section from the persons appearing at the inquiry or any appellant or objector, either where the appeal or objection has been successful or where, in his opinion, despite the failure of the appeal or objection, a substantial defence has been made by either appellant or objector.
I do not need to detain the House for very long on this Amendment, which deals with a simple point. The Bill makes provision for appraisal, review


and inquiry. It is clearly in the mind of the Government to establish standards in the industry and also to see that these standards when introduced should be maintained and upheld. In Clause 49 there is anticipation that there will be disputes over the performance of these standards and it rightly and properly provides for appeals to a tribunal. As we on this side of the House see the situation, this inhibits appeals by giving the Minister what appears to he unlimited power to award costs. This would have a strong deterrent effect on those who might be tempted to take a case to a tribunal inquiry. The Amendment would discourage frivolous appeals but it would ensure that no port employer should be discouraged from appeal by the possibility of a heavy bill for costs when he had a genuine defence.

Mr. Swingler: We all sympathise with the hon. Member's motive in this Amendment, but there has been this provision ever since 1933. This is a characteristic provision under Section 290(4) of the Local Government Act, 1933, and it is normally incorporated in similar circumstances in Bills where such inquiries are provided for to give the Minister absolute discretion to recover costs.
The general practice of Ministers for some time has been to recover such expenses only in rare cases. There is a minor error in the Amendment. It refers to "substantial defence". In these cases, no one will be, as it were, on trial. One should use the words, "a reasonable case has been made". My right hon. Friend and Ministers generally will, I am sure, continue the practice that only in rare cases where it is clear that there has been a waste of time will the power to recover costs be utilised.
Not in relation to this Bill, but in general terms, the Government are considering a general recommendation to the Council on Tribunals on this type of provision.

Mr. Lloyd: In view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 41, line 36, at end insert:
'dock business' means so much of a business or undertaking as relates to dock work, including any ancillary activities which it is necessary to carry on in connection with dock work".[Mrs. Shirley Williams].

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 41, line 37, to leave out from the first "work" to the end of line 38 and to insert:
in relation to any port, means work which is treated for the purposes of any labour scheme as dock work at that port".
This is a technical Amendment which meets a point made in Committee by hon. Members opposite. It is to relate the definition of dock work to a scheme which applies in a particular port rather than to the scheme in general, and therefore is rather more specific.

Amendment agreed to.

Title

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in the Title, line 11, after "provision", to insert:
for giving financial assistance in connection with the construction and improvement of harbours and the carrying out of harbour operations and".
This is simply an alteration in the Title to provide for the acceptance of the new Clause for investment grants.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope I have not missed the opportunity to speak. Is the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary going to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea which right hon. or hon. Member is going to seek to catch my eye.

11.27 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I thought the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was trying to catch your eye, and I was anxious not to involve the House in an excessive number of speeches.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to refer to two promises that I made to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. The first of these concerned the consultation with both sides of the industry before any change was made in the conditions attached to licences or to any supplementary conditions added to those licences. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will consult both sides of the industry and the National Ports Council before making any such change.
The second assurance for which the right Ion. Gentleman asked in Committee concerned the publication and the making available of reports arising from any inquiries into objections and appeals under this Bill. I think he will be reassured if I tell him that it is our intention that these reports should be made available first to the parties directly concerned and, in addition, to any other interested party, except where any information in that material is prejudicial to one of the parties. For instance, there might be some material concerning the financial situation of the company which it might not wish to be generally published. With this qualification, it is our intention that those reports will be made available as far as possible.
This is seen by the Government as part of the process of modernising the docks. We are extremely anxious that should there be other considerations in the long-term reorganisation of this industry, both sides should co-operate in bringing about the reorganisation that is necessary as rapidly as possible. I think I can reassure the House by informing hon. Members that the modernisation committee under Lord Brown has made very considerable advances with respect to working practices. In addition to this, the Honeyman Inquiry into the amended dock labour scheme has now been completed, and completed very smoothly. We are now awaiting the publication of the report.
Finally, the Dock Labour Board has virtually completed its inquiries with regard to the particular type of welfare schemes for different ports. Briefly, as a result of these separate inquiries and of the Dock Labour Board's survey, we are now in a position to take a long step

forward in easing relationships in this industry and in bringing about a genuine reorganisation and modernisation. We hope this can be done with the good will of both sides, which is crucial in an industry which is essential to the success of this nation, in terms of trade and in terms of the movement of goods and services and of people.
Recognising the importance of the industry, we hope that both sides will appreciate the good will of the Government in promoting the Bill, and the assistance that we have had from both the Opposition and many of my hon. Friends in helping to make it the best possible. Some may feel that the Bill has not met everything that they want, but I think that it is now a better Bill than it was on Second Reading, and it was made so by the hard work of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

11.26 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: Before commenting on the Bill as it now is, my hon. Friends and I would like to say a word about the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Lady took on the guidance of the Bill in unfortunate circumstances—the illness of her right hon. Friend the Minister—and we have received courtesy and scrupulous attention from her. While I do not propose to write a passage for her next election address, we think that she has done very well in handling what is, particularly on the last marathon of Amendments, a complicated Measure. I also express our gratitude to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for his work on the Bill.
We support the Bill. We think that it provides the best hope for an industry which has an unhappy past, and we hope that it will embark on a new life once Devlin. Honeyman and Brown have finished with it.
We note the tone of the brief, but encouraging, speech of the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary, on Third Reading. We agree with her that the industry needs confidence, both on the part of the employers, as investors and as managers, and on the part of the dockers, that a new, permanent, secure and well-paid future is opened up for them. If employers and dockers have confidence, the shippers of this country and the world will be able to have confidence.
We had assumed, in the serious attention that my hon. Friends and I have given to the Bill, that the Government had decided to back Lord Devlin's vision of the docks as they might be in the future, but the shadow of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has fallen across the debates on the Bill, and we do not know whether to accuse the Government of bad management in their timing, or of infirmity of purpose, or of a cynical indifference to the fate of the industry, and a concern only with the immediate issues and pressures of internal party politics.
In the light of the hon. Lady's speech on Third Reading, we do not want to make more than necessary of this issue, but we must emphasise that the confidence on which the effectiveness of the Bill depends has suffered a setback. We hope, however, that the Bill will be given a fair chance. We believe that the country, the docks, the dockers and the port employers need a package containing low costs, high earnings and high efficiency.
The Bill can produce that package, because it will make a number of essential improvements. We shall agree with the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, that a number of improvements are necessary. The Bill, although it will introduce those improvements, will retain the essential features of competition between ports, and between employers where appropriate, which is necessary to preserve low costs and high efficiency, and at the same time to provide high earnings and security for the dockers. We believe that, if the dockers want security and high earnings, private enterprise will provide them better than public enterprise. We ask dockers, if in doubt, to look at public enterprise and compare the conditions there with private enterprise.
We believe that if the country wants good docks, it will get them better from a package containing private enterprise than it will from public enterprise alone. For all these reasons, we hope that the Government will recognise that the Poplar alternative would provide the worst of all worlds: high costs, not particularly good earnings and low

efficiency, which together could be the death of the docks.
We wish the Bill well. We on our side of the House have done our best to make it better. We acknowledge the work that the Parliamentary Secretary has put into it. I, on my side, would like to acknowledge the effort that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has put into the detail of the Bill. We are glad to help give it a Third Reading and to wish all who work in the docks and who use the docks well under the Devlin umbrella.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Providence having been kind, for which one is always grateful, I shall endeavour to say some of the things which I failed to do earlier in the evening. The phrase which is best known on the docks is "the sweets and the sours". The docking fraternity believe that too few dock workers receive the sweets and that too many have to endure the sours.
Security of tenure is vital. It is vital to the employers and more vital, I consider, to employees. Decasualisation has been the curse of the docks and the bane of the docker's life. It has blighted the lives of the families of dockers from time immemorial. Who, in this day and age, would wish to turn out daily not knowing whether he would work? The employers, in their wisdow, now know that they cannot stop the tide. It is now acknowledged by all and sundry that the labourer is indeed worthy of his hire. It is a tremendous pity that we have had to wait until the advent of nationalisation for this profound principle to become an established fact.
Employers are not silly, dock labourers are not slow. They co-operate willy-nilly to drive a coach and pair through the Regulations as they now exist. Under the present system, employers stick to some dockers and some dockers stick to some employers. There is an affinity for some and disillusionment for many.
I could, if time permitted, catalogue a long list of anomalies and deficiencies in our docks system, but I will resist the temptation to do so. It must, however, be said in all truth that this is the one industry above all others, including steel, as one hon. Member suggested, that is


crying out to be nationalised. It is a great pity in many respects.—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate nationalisation on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Mahon: In view of your Ruling Mr. Speaker, for which I am grateful, may I say that it was merely a passing point. It is a great pity, in many respects, that the waiting period is so long. Had that good man, Lord Devlin, been less benign and just a little more forthright—I will not use the word "ruthless "—he could perhaps have hastened the lucky day. We must al ways be thankful for small mercies, and I, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and many of my hon. Friends, welcome this Bill as a move in the right direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURE (HILL SHEEP)

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the Government has failed to improve the position of hill sheep farmers and thus achieve a healthy expansion in the hill sheep industry.
We may safely and truthfully congratulate ourselves that we are adopting Biblical words and watching our flocks by night. It is only right that I should express the appreciation of myself and my hon. Friends of the Government granting time for this by no means unimportant matter, to be discussed. In the Review White Paper of 1966, paragraph 32 on page 12 reads:
The total breeding flock has continued to expand, but the expansion is only in the hills.
Two paragraphs later are the words:
The Government do not wish to check the increase in the hill flock.
I do not think it unfair to say that there is nothing either purposeful, positive or pragmatic about that particular statement of policy. It is rather like saying to the Minister of State for Scotland, "We know that you are most productive, or used to be most productive in terms of words, but we are not exactly anxious to encourage you to speak now." The hon. Gentleman is not heard nearly so often

as he used to be. I find certain similarities in this example.
Last year saw a marriage in England and Wales between the hill sheep subsidy and the winter keep scheme. It was a somewhat subterfuge marriage, whereby the hill sheep subsidy was included in the Price Review for the first time, in an attempt to put a little, much-needed polish on that most dusty of all Price Review operations. The position now, and I am referring to England and Wales, is that last year's standard rate of 18s. increased by last year's supplement of 3s. 6d. in lieu of winter keep has now been increased by a further is., making 22s. 6d. in all. That is for the standard rate, whereas the reduced rate is 12s. 6d. One should add that at the same time as the Government gave this extra is, they reduced the price of wool by the equivalent of 9d. on every hill ewe. In Scotland the situation is slightly different. There is no reduced rate, and the hill sheep subsidy, at the moment, stands at 21s. This 21s. includes the supplement of 2s. given last year on the same basis as the 3s. 6d. in England and Wales. It was given
for eligible sheep maintained on units qualifying for grant under the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme".
There is a question here of great importance. Are there any hill sheep in Scotland which qualify for the 19s. subsidy and not the 2s. supplement? I put this point last year, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture replied then that all sheep in England and Wales which had the 18s. would have the 3s. 6d. as well. Does the same apply as regards the 2s. supplement in Scotland?
As it stands, the 21s. subsidy in Scotland is 1s. 6d. less than its counterpart in England and Wales, and the bridge which is supposed to join the two, so to speak, is the acreage payment system, the winter keep grant in Scotland, which does not exist in England and Wales. But is the Minister of State satisfied that these acreage payments under the winter keep scheme in Scotland have the effect of providing that 1s. 6d. per ewe, of which there is a shortage as between Scotland and South of the Border?
If a farm carries a hill sheep flock, it will certainly be eligible for winter keep grant. Of that there can be no doubt.


But not every farm which is eligible can have its ground cultivated and thus actually draw the grant for which it is eligible. I am sure that the Ministers will know well the road which runs across the Lammermuirs, from Haddington to Duns. Driving along that road, one comes across six or seven farms all of which are grade C and, therefore, eligible for winter keep grant, but not one of them draws it because they are too high or too exposed to cultivate. Those are facts which I have ascertained. A farm like that is worse off by 1s. 6d. per ewe than an equivalent farm in England and Wales. Can the Minister of State tell us how many farms there are of this kind, that is, farms eligible for winter keep grant but not drawing it for the reasons I have mentioned?
As I have said, the subsidy has gone up by 1s. and the value of the fleece has gone down by 9d. It is ludicrous to suggest that a net increase of 3d. per hill ewe will produce a healthy expansion. I leave out of account for the moment the Selective Employment Tax. I hope that the Minister will not say that this tax will be refunded to hill farmers, because, of course, there are all the incidental effects of it on the ancillaries, the vet, the transport haulier and so on. In any case, of course, it is not a net 3d. on every animal. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will have done a lot of research into gimmers, and to put him out of his agony I say at once that I am not going to talk about gimmers, but I hope he will realise that it is not only the hill ewe which is suffering a reduction of 9d. a fleece but that the ewe hogs are suffering it as well, and all the tups which work on the hill farm are suffering the cut in addition. Therefore, he need not suppose that this is merely a case of a net 3d. all round, because it is not.
I do not believe that this 3d. is likely to produce any healthy expansion, and I underline the word "healthy" for this reason. The number of hill ewes in Scotland in 1964–65 increased by only 0·3 per cent., and even less did they increase if we take the previous year into consideration as well. So there is virtually a standstill in the hill sheep expansion, despite what the White Paper said.
As for a healthy expansion, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) made one or two extraordinary statements in a debate the other day. He said that expansion in numbers means prosperity. That was the phrase he used. Of course, it does not necessarily mean that at all. What it can mean is that as the return per animal is reduced so the hill sheep farmer desperately keeps more animals in order to try to keep the same gross return. It is utter self-deception by the hon. Gentleman if he really does think that because numbers go up on any farm, or in any sector of farming, that means that prosperity is attending it.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Selective Employment Tax would not affect hill farms in Perthshire and other places. I shall not dwell on the tax, but the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong, and I have referred to the side effects the tax will have.
As for the economics of the hill sheep industry, it is most interesting to look at what is an excellent publication, and that is "Scottish Agricultural Economics" put out by the Department each year. I often wish there were a similar one dealing with conditions of farming south of the Border. I have not managed to discover it yet. But in the latest edition, volume 16, we are told that between 1963–64 and 1964–65 the gross output from sheep on a hill farm has gone up by £110 while costs have gone up by £84. That leaves £26 of encouragement to expand in the hill sheep industry.
The hill sheep subsidy is no longer flexible but fixed for a period, and I still believe, as I have said previously, that it would be better to have a two-tier system in which there is a fixed subsidy, with increases in bad seasons—such as we have had on this occasion, with the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday saying that losses on hill sheep farms are likely to be as much as 10 per cent. There should be room on an occasion like this for the second tier of the subsidy to be brought into operation.
To qualify for the payment of the hill sheep subsidy, a flock of sheep must satisfy three conditions, one of which is that it has been maintained on hill land under natural conditions throughout


the year in accordance with the recognised practices of hill sheep farming. The only dispensation which the Secretary of State has lies when a flock has been recently established or where it has suffered very abnormal losses.
In light of the new methods which are on the way for this sector of the industry—because in-wintering is coming, I am sure—can the Minister of State say whether thought is being given to what is to be the position about subsidy if, for a month or even a matter of weeks, a flock is in-wintered? Will the industry be able to take advantage of the new methods? Are experiments being undertaken by, for example, the Animal Breeding Research Organisation?
Frankly, I doubt whether much capital Is available to put up the sheds which will be necessary for in-wintering, and I doubt whether the average hill sheep farmer could manage to spend that sort of capital. At the rate the Government are trundling along with the Agriculture Bill, it will be a long time before the farm improvement grant is payable.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Speed it up.

Mr. Stodart: It is hardly the fault of the Opposition that the Government have taken a month to get the Bill even as far as the Committee.
These are questions which are interesting and worrying to many people in the hill farming industry. If the Minister of State can answer some of the points which my hon. Friends and I have put to him, it will be of service to the industry, and this debate will have been well worth waiting for.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I hope that the Minister of State will realise that those of us who ate concerned with the farming problems of areas in which sheep are raised are extremely worried about the economic position confronting these farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has shown that the 1s. increase in the subsidy in Scotland coupled with the fall in the price of wool takes no account at all of the increased costs and the falling returns which the industry faces. In addi-

tion, the industry is going through a period of the most seriously restricted credit, and it is a section of farming where the operating margin is generally a very small one, if any margin exists at all. On top of all that, we have the Selective Employment Tax, which will have a serious effect on hill farmers, who will be required to make an interest-free loan to the Government. I wish that I could believe that the concern which we genuinely feel is shared or in any way appreciated by the Minister of State. I should like to think that it is.
My hon. Friend referred to some extraordinary comments made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) when speaking from the Treasury Bench during the debate on the Wool Marketing Order some weeks ago. I shall not dwell on the hon. Gentleman's astonishing statement about the Selective Employment Tax, because he was generous enough to write me a letter of apology when he realised that I was right and he was wrong.
During that speech the hon. Gentleman made the extraordinary suggestion that the increase in sheep flocks was a sign of prosperity. It is in fact a sign of increasing hardship. The Minister of State shakes his head. I must disabuse his mind. The hill farmer today, rather like the Red Queen, has to run faster and faster to stay in the same place.
I want to draw attention to the problem of the high lying hill farmer, the man who, on paper, qualifies for the "C" grade winter keep payment. I am concerned about the fact that, according to the 1965 payment figures, which related to 1964, about 9,400 farmers claimed winter keep. The reason for my concern is that about 14,500 farmers were eligible for this payment. The difference between those two figures is 5,100, so it appears that about that number of hill farmers did not receive any winter keep grant.
I cannot believe that this was through any act of negligence, because farmers are not like that. If they are eligible for grant, they will apply for it. It must be that, although on paper they were eligible, they were not able to meet the conditions under which the grant is paid, and this must be a reflection of the fact that of the large number of farmers who


fall within the "C" grade, some are high-lying farmers who do not qualify for the grant because their land is so high that they have little or no arable land.
It appears from these figures—and my local experience confirms this—that many of those hill farmers who are most in need of winter keep grant are not receiving it, not because of any deficiency in their farming operation, but because the climatic conditions in which they have to farm are such that they are precluded from making a claim where the qualification for winter keep is based on acreage and acreage alone.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is these high lying farmers who can make a great contribution to sheep rearing in Britain, and yet these are the people who, although most in need of help, appear not to be receiving the winter keep grant because, climatically, they are not eligible for it. In those circumstances, surely there is a case for changing the basis of the scheme, at least for the high-lying farmer, the "C" grade farmer?
On previous occasions my right hon. and hon. Friends have proposed that there should be a shift from the acreage qualification to a headage qualification for winter keep. I suggest to the Minister of State that the figures which I have quoted show that there is a case for introducing at least an optional scheme for "C" grade farmers, whereby they can opt for payment either on an acreage basis, or on a headage basis.
If that idea were adopted, it would overcome the difficulties which confront many high-lying farmers who are excluded from the benefit of the scheme because of the base on which it rests. I hope that the Minister will consider this, and if possible give us some indication of his thoughts on the matter when he replies.
When we make suggestions from this side of the House we are often told that, attractive though our suggestions may be, it is administratively impossible to carry them into effect. I do not believe that that argument can apply in this case, for the good reason that all these farms are classified already. The Department knows all about them. The farms are

all listed. Their physical characteristics are known, and I should have thought that there would be no great administrative problem in introducing an adjustment to the scheme of the kind to which I have referred.
I end as I began, by emphasising to the Minister the clear fact—known to all of us who live in country of this kind—that many hill farmers, particularly the high-lying ones, have been going through the greatest period of difficulty that they have known for years. On top of the problems of rising costs and falling returns they are now emerging from a period of very great loss. It has been a long winter; the losses have been extreme, and I am assured by some farmers, whose word I trust, that they simply do not know how they are going to manage in the next few months—and this is the time when they are threatened with the Selective Employment Tax.
I hope that the Minister will consider the argument sympathetically and will give thought, if not now at least in the next few weeks, to a possible adjustment of the basis of the "C" grade scheme.

12.2 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I want first to reply to some of the Scottish questions before speaking to the Motion itself.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is 12 months behind in his argument about the 14,000 farms graded as eligible for winter keep. We had this debate last year—

Mr. MacArthur: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any later information?

Mr. Willis: I shall reply to the hon. Member's point. We had a debate last year on the question why 14,500 farms were graded as eligible for winter keep and only 9,000 were receiving payment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) raised this question, and I wrote to him afterwards expanding my answer fairly considerably, and probably to his satisfaction—

Mr. Stodart: Mr. Stodart indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member shakes his head, but he has not raised the question again tonight. The short point is that this figure of 14,500 farms includes a large number of very small places—glebes, cots and smallholdings—which


provide only part-time or spare-time employment. From all the evidence we have, 9,000 is roughly about the number that should be in receipt of the winter keep payment.
His second point concerned the question of giving an option to take either headage or acreage payments. I am sorry to inform the hon. Member that this would be administratively rather difficult. It also raises the question whether some people south of the Border, who might be suffering as a result of headage payments instead of acreage payments, would also ask for an option. The hon. Member must face that possibility.
Some people may be not so well off as a result of our system in Scotland, and they might benefit by his proposal, but generally it has been accepted that in Scotland there is not a considerable demand to change the present system. In any case, as I have said, it would be extremely difficult, administratively, to do as he suggests.

Mr. Stodart: Where does the difficulty arise? We all know that these farms are graded. What is the administrative difficulty of saying that a farm which is graded "C" arid which is to be paid by the Department £5 per acre, should have the choice of claiming the headage payment? Where is the difficulty? Is it the duty of the Minister to say that it would not be popular in England? Is not his job to stick up for the Scottish agricultural system?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman should not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about the popularity of this in either Scotland or England. I have stuck up for Scotland in Parliament far more than the hon. Gentleman and I assure him that I said nothing about popularity. I merely pointed out that if this choice were given in Scotland, it might also be raised south of the Border. This seems a reasonable deduction. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that immediately. I am surprised that he is so sluggish in understanding this. My information is that this would create administrative difficulties.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the Minister note that from the point of view of the sort of Anglo-Scottish competition that

exists—[Interruption.] Why is the Minister looking so surprised? Why does he think that if this sort of optional scheme existed in Scotland, the farmer in England would insist that such a scheme should exist in England? Surely in England there is already a differential in the subsidy payments. That would to some extent be balanced out if there existed in Scotland the sort of scheme I proposed. It would be balanced out in favour of the very high-lying farm which is frequently found in Scotland. There is no weight in the Minister's argument.

Mr. Willis: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion. I again object to hon. Gentlemen opposite putting words into my mouth. I did not say what he suggested I said. I simply said that we have our system in Scotland and that some people consider that they might be better off if they had a headage payment. The hon. Gentleman says that we should give them a choice, and I pointed out that people in England who are in receipt of a headage payment might then ask for exactly the same arrangement. I just made the point that that might happen. I do not know what all the trouble is about. I am surprised at the inability of hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand the simplest of propositions. Why are they misinterpreting what I am saying?

Mr. MacArthur: The trouble is about a certain number of farmers in Scotland who are not receiving anything under the winter keep scheme because their farms are lying too high. That is what the trouble is about and the Minister should recognise that he should try to take some trouble to benefit those people who are at present excluded from the scheme.

Mr. Willis: If they have hill sheep, they get the headage payment. If they are cropping, they get the acreage payment. If they are not cropping and if they have sheep, they get the 2s. [Interruption.] I am explaining the position. I wish hon. Gentleman opposite would try to understand it. They do not get the acreage payment, because that is given for something else. This scheme was accepted in Scotland as being most in accord with Scottish conditions, and I recall that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West had something to do with its acceptance.

Mr. Stodart: The Minister said something extremely important just then, possibly in the heat of the moment. Is he saying, as an answer to the question I asked, that for every sheep in respect of which the farmer receives the 19s. subsidy, he receives the 2s. supplement?

Mr. Willis: Those on land eligible for winter keep.

Mr. MacArthur: Oh.

Mr. Willis: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
The Motion deals with a healthy expansion in the hill sheep industry. We made our position clear, as a Government, in the National Plan published in September in which a programme of selective expansion for agriculture to meet the expected increase in the demand for food was announced. No specific production targets were set in the plan, because, as the White Paper says, the desirable rate of expansion of different targets must depend on a number of factors. But for sheep and lambs it is envisaged that, consistent with our commitments to overseas suppliers, home production should make an increasing contribution to increasing demand.
It was agreed by the National Farmers' Union that the Annual Price Reviews should be used as a means of keeping under constant review the progress being achieved under the planned programme for agriculture and of assessing the resources required.
Of course, we are not talking about expansion at any cost. Clearly, one of the factors which must he constantly kept in mind is the resources in manpower and materials which are needed to achieve expansion. In the Government's view, expansion which ignored the cost in manpower, material and money and which was not specifically geared to the market demand would be far from healthy.
The Motion also alleges that the Government have failed to improve the position of hill sheep farmers. I would remind the House that, after the 1965 Annual Review, the Government placed the hill sheep subsidy on a new basis which was calculated to give more assistance. Instead of a variable subsidy, which might be paid in some years and not in others—in five years out of the ten

in the 1950s, no subsidy was paid at all—according to the assessment or the circumstances of the hill sheep farm in the previous year, from 1965, hill sheep farmers have known in advance that they would receive sufficient to cover any normal variation in weather conditions from year to year.
The rate of subsidy was fixed at 18s. for each eligible ewe, which compares with an average of 9s. 6d. for the five preceding years. No one has questioned that this was of real value to hill sheep farmers, nor has anyone suggested that the rate of 18s. was ungenerous. In fact, it was very widely welcomed at the time.
After the last Annual Review, we made two further changes. The returns from wool form a substantial part of the income of hill sheep farmers. If the arrangements between the Government and the British Wool Marketing Board are to work as intended as a price-stabilising mechanism, there must be a reasonable prospect that the guaranteed price and the market price, which is largely determined by the world market, will equate over a period. The Government accordingly reduced the guaranteed price of wool by 2d. a pound.
The effect of this reduction will vary for hill sheep farmers according to the breed and type of sheep which they keep and the part of the country in which they farm. On average, however, and allowing for the wool clipped from animals which are not eligible for the hill sheep subsidy, the addition to the subsidy of 1s. per eligible ewe is calculated to do rather more than offset the reduction in the wool price and to give a further small incentive to those who maintain our hill stocks.
At the same time, the price of fat sheep and lambs was increased by ¾ d. It was the first time that there had been an increase in this price for several years. It had been going down. This represented roughly ¼ d. as compensation for the reduction in the wool price and ½ d per lb. as a direct encouragement to sheep production. Many hill farmers will be able to benefit directly from this additional ½ d but others will not. However, since the lambs which come off the hills are finished on the lower ground as fat lambs or enter the mutton low ground flocks even those hill farmers who cannot sell any of their lambs fat should benefit indirectly from this increase.
I will not weary the House with a long recital of figures, but I think just a few should be given to get this matter into its proper perspective. The number of hill ewes subsidised in Scotland in 1940 was 2,278,000; in 1950 it was 2,380,000, and in 1960 it was 2,399,000. The number subsidised in 1965 was 2,465,000, and in the light of the Government's policy and actions, and the figures I have just given, I am afraid that we cannot accept this Motion.
I accept the point which has been made about the increased figures not meaning, necessarily, greater prosperity. This is a difficult matter on which different interpretations can be placed. One might well be that more efficient methods have helped, but I do not want al this hour to enter into an argument along those lines although I accept what has been said.
There is an inevitable tendency, and one which is understandable, to consider in isolation the guaranteed price of a particular commodity, or the subsidy given to a special branch of farming. Yet I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this is a rather unrealistic way of looking at things. Each decision must be taken as part of general policy. Each grant must be looked at in relation to the whole complex of grants and subsidies. It is true that hill farmers do not obtain the same benefits as others have from the guaranteed prices and subsidies which are generally available, and this is, indeed, one of the main reasons why successive Governments have ensured that specific means of assistance are available for them.
Many hill sheep farmers do, however, obtain substantial help from other sources than the hill sheep subsidy and since their customers are, in the main, farmers on lower and better ground, they are assisted indirectly, but none the less effectively, by the measures taken to maintain profitability of farming as a whole. The Government, furthermore, have not been content to rest on well tried methods of assistance. The hill farm improvement schemes were brought to an end in 1963 by our predecessors, and in the Bill now upstairs in Committee we are proposing to introduce new and generous grants for the improvement of hill land.
We are also proposing that the hill sheep and hill cattle subsidies, and the

winter keep grants should be put on a permanent basis, instead of leaving them as formerly, that is, to be renewed from time to time. There are also other sections of the Bill, principally those dealing with farm structure and co-operation, which will also have a useful impact in the hill areas. All this gives some certainty, and makes it easier to plan ahead.
It might be convenient if I now answer some of the specific points which have been raised. I was asked how many do not get the 2s. supplement. The answer is about 125,000 or roughly 5 per cent., but this figure refers almost entirely to split units.
I was also asked whether the winter keep grant payments make up the difference between the 2s. payment in Scotland and the 3s. 6d. in England. The answer is "Yes". On average, it is estimated that the acreage payments and the 2s. supplement are equivalent to the 3s. 6d. in England.
The hon. Gentleman then asked me how many winter keep farms do not get acreage payment because they do no cropping. I am sorry, but we have no figures, so I cannot readily answer his question. The hon. Gentleman will probably appreciate—

Mr. Stodart: I cannot see the difficulty in, say, the Lothians area, of asking the Department's inspectors this very question. I believe that they would be able to tell the Minister almost off the cuff.

Mr. Willis: I have just asked, and they have not been able to tell me off the cuff, which is, I think, the answer to the hon. Gentleman. If the figures can be obtained easily, I will certainly try to get them for him, but, at the moment, we do not have them.
The hon. Gentleman referred to in-wintering experiments. These experiments are being conducted, as I think he probably knows, by the Hill Farming Research Association, by agricultural colleges and also on private farms. The results will be taken into consideration when we frame new schemes after the lapse of the present hill sheep schemes.
Hill sheep farming has been carried on in Britain for a long time, but the methods have not changed greatly. The present systems were dictated by the economic


conditions of their times, and many people are now wondering whether they are necessarily the best suited under modern conditions for all hill farms. The Government have said that they will keep the detailed conditions of the hill subsidies under review so as to permit the best use of hill land in the light of modern technological advances.
We have recently reconstituted the Scottish Hill Farming Advisory Committee, and have been fortunate to secure for that body the services of experienced, able and enthusiastic hill farmers. There is a similar body for England and Wales. These bodies are being asked, as part of the Government's review, to consider the extent to which the conditions of the subsidy scheme may need to be adapted in the light of modern developments in hill farming practice. The economic conditions of the hill sheep industry will, of course, continue to be examined each year as part of the annual Price Review. I should have thought that all these measures indicated the Government's intention towards the industry—the intention to see it develop as outlined and set forth in the National Plan.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: Perhaps we might now turn our eyes from Scotland for a few moments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It seems to me that so far our consideration of this matter has turned entirely on Scotland, but there are other parts of the country that are interested in sheep, and particularly in hill sheep—and none more than the South-West. with Dartmoor and Exmoor. It is, therefore, right that we should say something about that aspect.
To say the least, the last winter has been particularly difficult for the sheep farmers, and particularly those on Dartmoor and in other places. It has been very wet and cold, and this increase in the subsidy in no way makes up for the very severe setbacks that the sheep farmers have had. Indeed, that is my main point tonight. We have had loss of lambs and loss of ewes.
Here, I must declare an interest. Although I have a lowland farm and keep a lowland flock, we have had considerable losses of lambs and ewes, and farmers on the moors have suffered even

greater loss. Lamb prices are down, and so are ewe and wool prices. The Minister may not think this has affected the industry, but the recent loss of export lambs has already made quite a difference to the price of lambs in the markets.
All this is reflected back to the farmer on the hills who produces store lambs. It is a rather hackneyed phrase, but hill farmers who produce hill lambs are vitally important. It is vitally important that we should keep them going so that they can produce store lambs and so that the lowland farmer can fatten them. We have heard in this debate that lamb flocks are going down. It is still vital to maintain hill farmers so that they can produce the necessary store lambs and to give them every encouragement.
It might be said that the hill farmer is not doing too badly with all the subsidies he gets, but he deserves all the help and encouragement he can get for it is not easy to farm under the conditions in which he seeks to farm. It is a difficult job with many set-backs. He is doing a very important job in helping the total effort to reduce overseas expenditure. I think that this increase will not make up for the difficulties he has experienced. In his Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1966, paragraph 34, the Minister says:
The Government do not wish to check the increase in the hill flock,
and that the 1s. which the Government are now giving.
provides a small incentive.
"Small" is the right word. If we work it out we find that it is very small indeed. For a 400 ewe flock it amounts to £5 extra a year and for an 800 ewe flock the farmer will get only £10 extra a year. This is minute and does not make up for all the extra costs which these farmers have had.
The Minister of State has referred to what happened under previous Administrations. What he does not appear to realise is that costs of production have risen fantastically. Various Government measures have affected this very much besides general rises in wages, cost of petrol and a host of things. When a farmer with a flock of 400 ewes gets only £5 extra, we are justified in claiming that the increase does not cover his increased costs during the difficult winter


which many such farmers have experienced.
There is much more that I could say, but I do not want to prolong the debate for too long, because other hon. Members wish to speak. It is important to remind the Minister that in the description of sheep I see no mention of Dartmoor sheep. The schemes refers to
local breeds as he may approve
I hope that he will continue to approve some breeds in the South-West.
Overstocking might become more important when one considers the Commons Registration Act and the effect which it might have on the total sheep population. The Minister has power to reduce the subsidy if he thinks that there is over-stocking. He can seek to reduce the number of ewes by taking away the subsidy. It would be interesting to know how many times he has had to use that power. Reference has been made to management. A condition of the scheme is that correct hill farming practices must be carried out. I hope that the Minister will be flexible about this. I hope that his officers will be flexible and that the Minister will take into account new techniques. It is important to think of the increased productivity we have had in sheep farming and in farming as a whole.
If there were hon. Members opposite to hear it, I could assure them that there is no need to fear that we are taking advantage of these subsidies and wasting them. This is money well spent. There is no question that agriculture and sheep farming have a wonderful history of increased productivity, amounting to at least 6 per cent. This is something of which we should be proud. There need he no sneers or fears that this is wasted money. Indeed, it is money well spent. Productivity is the result of this. Industry and the country as a whole can take a leaf out of agriculture in the increased productivity that arises from new techniques, subsidies and so on.
When one takes into consideration the losses and the problems that these sheep farmers have had during the past winter, and of course the tremendously increased costs, this Is. is a very minute increase indeed.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: What I found so extraordinary in the speech of the Minister of State was that there was no recognition of the fact that the plight in the hills is serious and that if much more drastic action is not taken on behalf of the hill farmers many of them will go to the wall and go out of business.
In the White Paper the Government say that they do not wish to check the increase in the hill flocks, but every step that they take will drive sheep off the hills and will turn the best of the sheep ground into forests. Sheep farmers are tired of exhortations to higher efficiency. They would all have gone bankrupt years ago if they were not supremely efficient at their form of husbandry.
What we should be talking about tonight is not so much 1s. on the hill ewe subsidy as a rescue operation for the whole of hill shep farming. True, we should remember the very great deal of good that has been done by the hill farming scheme, but if we continue with the depression of the hill sheep industry these farmers will not be able to maintain the improvement they carried out some years ago.
One only has to look at the cost of hill drainage at the moment. Ten years ago it was 3s. 3d. a chain. Now one is very lucky to get it done at 7s. 6d. Naturally, the draining that should be done to maintain the hill improvement schemes is beginning to deteriorate. It is not possible to mechanise the shepherd's work. Some people have tried ranching, and it does not work. Others have tried using Land Rovers, and so on. But the shepherd has his particular area to look after and there is no other means of doing it but on foot.
We need all the encouragement we can get to improve draining, to deal with top dressing and fencing, but there is not the cash to do it as it should be done. At all times hill farmers have ploughed back money into their hills when they had it. They have always purchased the best tups and have put on the best hill cattle that they could afford. The important point is that they do not really want a subsidy or a grant. They want much better prices for the three commodities that they can sell. They can sell mutton, wool and cast ewes. All


these items are fetching considerably less than they were 10 years ago.
Shepherds' wages have gone up 85 per cent., and they certainly deserve it. According to the latest figures of the Wool Board, rates have gone up 94 per cent., and the increase is probably nearer 100 per cent. after revaluation. Rent has increased by 98 per cent., and the Bank Rate by 66 per cent. Now the hill farmers are faced with the Selective Employment Tax loan.
I want to show how their income has dropped catastrophically. I have got the average figures from one of the largest auction markets in the South of Scotland, selling tens of thousands of lambs from the Cheviots and the Southern Uplands. I have taken representative figures, with no particular year in mind. In 1957, the average price of these thousands of Cheviot wether lambs was £5 7s. 10d. a head. Last autumn, it was £4 9s. 1d., which was 18s. 9d. down, and so a farmer who is selling 1,000 lambs will lose about £1,000 on his income straight away.
Even more significant was the price of Cheviot draft ewes. In 1957, it was £6 7s. 10d., and last year it had nearly halved, to £3 15s. A large part of the hill farmers' capital is tied up in stock, and it is being halved by the price of their product at present.
I should like to have gone through the large number of letters that I have received from flock masters throughout the South of Scotland, but time is short. Those letters all indicate the considerable drop in the average price of top wether lambs, many of them of over £1 and the fact that draft ewes dropped by 50 per cent.
I had a letter from a farmer who had 2,200 ewes in 1957, and whose gross sale of wool and lambs was £14,000 in that year. Last year, that figure dropped to £12,000—a drop of £2,000 on lambs and wool. Against that, another farmer's expenditure on 1,800 ewes has gone up from £4,000 to £8,000. The income is dropping and the expenditure is rising dramatically. I could continue with many other examples.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Member saying that the figures he has given were of total income or sales. or had the subsidy /o be added to the figures?

Mr. Monro: I was giving the total figure of sales in the market of lambs and wool.

Mr. Hoy: Excluding subsidy?

Mr. Monro: There is no subsidy on store lambs.

Mr. Hoy: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was talking about sales off the farm, and if any subsidies were included I wanted to be sure what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

Mr. Monro: We want also to see more money spent on research into disease control. Some hon. Members on this side of the House visited the Rowat research establishment, in Aberdeen, this week and saw the great benefits that we shall obtain from its work in the years to come. But it could do with more money and more buildings in the very near future.
One other point that has not been mentioned tonight is the severe discrimination under the Selective Employment Tax against the operations of the Wool Board. These are subject to tax, but the Board's direct competitors, man-made fibres, are not; they will, indeed, receive the premium. This will make it harder to sell wool, and result in a lower income for the hill farmers.
I want to emphasise again that the situation is desperately serious, and the hill ewe subsidy is but a drop in the ocean. I implore the Minister to take immediate action to help this most important branch of farming, particularly in Scotland, where, if the autumn store sales do not show a very considerable improvement in prices, many hill farmers will be bankrupt by next winter.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Hoy: I apologise to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) if I did not understand him clearly on one point and thought, when he was dealing with hill sheep, that he was talking about sales off the hill, and wondered whether he had included the subsidy. I am sorry if I misinterpreted what he was saying at that time.
The hon. Member and one of his hon. Friends argued that more should be done for the hill farmer. I shall not suggest that we have done everything possible, but, when he complains about the subsidies that have been paid, let me compare what the Government have done


with the previous record. In five of the years between 1951 and 1963 no subsidy was paid for hill sheep, and in five years the subsidy was 5s. or less. On two occasions it was between 5s. and 10s., and on one special occasion, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) will remember, it was 25s. That is the history of the subsidies over this period.
We have put the subsidy on a firm and continuing basis. Previously, the rate of subsidy, if there was one at all, was assessed retrospectively in the light of a review of the economic circumstances of the hill sheep industry during the year. Then, and only then, was any assessment made. Because of their intermittent nature, the hill sheep subsidy payments were not taken into account in the Annual Review. This is the reason for it, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) knows well. This system had several drawbacks, the most noticeable of which was that farmers did riot know in advance whether a subsidy would be payable in any year. The industry, not unreasonably, complained of a. lack of assurance and stability as a result.
We therefore decided, with the agreement of the National Farmers' Unions, to put the subsidy on a flat-rate annual basis and within the ambit of the Annual Review. The standard rate of 18s. determined at the 1965 Annual Review was paid in respect of of ewes kept in 1964 and was sufficiently generous to cover fluctuation in returns due to normal variations in the weather and to allow farmers a reserve against the event of a severe winter. That was why it was fixed at that rate, which was not ungenerous.
This arrangement compares not unfavourably, to say the least, with what happened in previous years. In the event of a disastrous winter and losses occurring, the Government, of course, would have to consider at that time whether special action would have to be taken; but they have been sufficiently generous to cover ordinary circumstances.
Then we looked at the winter keep scheme. This, too, was not working satisfactorily, not least because many hill farmers—for example, those with no in-bye land—were ineligible. We therefore discussed the matter with the Farmers' Unions and it was agreed to discontinue

the previous arrangement and pay winter keep on a headage basis instead as a supplement to the hill sheep subsidy.
That decision was endorsed by the Hill Farming Advisory Committee. The rate was set at 3s. 6d. in England and Wales. We know that it was done on a different basis in Scotland, where there is a combination of both headage and acreage payments. They are not always quite so simple to work out, because even before I came to the Department I had long correspondence with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, when he was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, concerning payments and who should be classified in categories A, B and C under this basis. I remember meeting some farmers who argued that apparently all the C classifications of farms occurred on one side of the hill adjacent to the hon. Gentleman, while all the others were on the Galashiels side of the hill. This is not, therefore, a new problem, and the hon. Member knows this. It has existed for a long number of years.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it would be quite easy to get the number of farms from the inspectors concerned. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman never succeeded in getting the number while he was Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Stodart: I entirely agree that this is not a new problem, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Mr. Hoy: It was the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter. Indeed, he suggested to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that even within that compass it should be possible to decide which type of grant was wanted even under the A, B and C categories. I was merely reminding the hon. Gentleman that it is a problem.
When the hon. Gentleman mentions the road between Haddington and Duns and the farms as being under difficulty, I am not denying it. I have travelled that road often. I did it at the weekend. The farms were under that difficulty even when the hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. They have not changed the geographical position—they are' still there just the same as when he was there.
I ought to say that the combined payment in England and Wales on each hill ewe is 21s. 6d., and the total amount paid in 1965 was £2·94 million. The total for the United Kingdom was £5·064 million. In this year's Annual Review we raised the rate of subsidy by another Is., making the combined rate for England and Wales 22s. 6d., that is 1s. on the previous year. Recognising that we only had statutory authority to make schemes up to 1966, we decided that this was not a satisfactory state of affairs, since farmers could have no certainty that the subsidy would continue, and that is why we decided to seek powers to extend indefinitely the period in respect of which subsidy schemes may be made.
During the duration of any particular scheme it will be limited to a maximum of five years and we have made provision in the Agriculture Bill accordingly. These are substantial measures to meet the lot of the hill sheep farmers. Since they have all been taken in the last 18 months we have not wasted very much time in taking action.

Mr. Michael Jopling: His hon. Friend quoted the rise in the price of mutton and lamb. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the increase of 3d. per head for hill ewes does not apply to hill farmers because they rely on the market? In view of this, would he not agree that hill farmers will be worse off next year than this, as a result of rising costs?

Mr. Hoy: No. This extra Is. was awarded and it is no use trying to fritter it down to 3d. My hon. Friend was saying fat lamb has gone up and that it might be reflected in the better prices paid to the hill farmers. That was all that he said, that hill farmers might indirectly benefit.
For the future the Government have made it clear that they are concerned to see the best use made of agricultural resources in the hill and upland areas. This is quite apart from hill subsidies. We have made the necessary provisions in the Agriculture Bill which is now before the House. Hon. Gentlemen have complained about there being a delay in it going into Committee. It was ex-

plained at the first meeting why this was so and all that I would say in reply is that we will be grateful for the cooperation of hon. Gentlemen in speeding up the procedure a little and letting us get on with the business.
We have set about tackling the problems facing our hill sheep industry. I agree with the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that the farmers have a very important part to play in our expanding agriculture, and we shall continue to see that they can play that part effectively. It has been said before, but I only wish that every section of industry had increased its output in the same way that agriculture has done.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West for thanking the Government for this debate. Without it, it would not have been possible to have a debate at all. We are glad to have been able to have this debate and I can assure hon. Gentlemen who have taken part that as far as we are concerned we will do all that is humanly possible to help this very important section of agriculture.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I shall not detain the House long, but I wish to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, how much we appreciate the Government's giving time for the debate. We thank the two Ministers who have spoken for trying to help us. The interest shown by those of my hon. Friends who have been present, but who have not been able to speak, serves only to emphasise that this has been a worth-while exercise.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Only the hon. Member who moved it may ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Stodart: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not sure that I should have permission to speak again. In view of the replies we have had, not that we are by any means satisfied by them, I beg to ask leave the withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

COLOUR TELEVISION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

12.51 a.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: May I begin by offering my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General on his new appointment and wishing him all possible success in an office upon which every citizen in this country is deeply dependent in one way or another. It is a cause of some regret to me and, perhaps, to the right hon. Gentleman himself that all these citizens are not yet dependent upon him for colour television, but I believe, nevertheless, that the time will shortly come when they will be.
My reasons for bringing forward the matter of colour television at this stage are these. I believe that recent events and developments, technical and otherwise, suggest that there is a need for an urgent review of the Government's position regarding colour television and for a review of their plans as a whole. If such a review is not conducted, there will he a real danger that we shall slip so far behind in this field that we may find it difficult to catch up again.
The complex technical and social considerations involved in the introduction of colour television to Britain have been discussed and argued about in this country for upwards of ten years. During that time, America and Japan have been successful in introducing multi-channel colour television services, and several other countries are on the point of so doing. This country during that time has adopted a plan to introduce colour television on 625 lines only on the u.h.f. band.
In my view, recent developments have shown that this decision was mistaken. I do not say that it was a wrong decision in the light of the information available at the time, but events since suggest that we might well have made another decision and that, perhaps, the B.B.C.'s application in 1959 to be permitted to transmit in colour on 405 lines on v.h.f. should have been acceded to. I understand why it was not, and I sympathise with the reasons, but I believe that we should re-examine the matter now.
Briefly, the reasons for the decision to transmit colour in this country only

on 625 lines were these. First, the quality of picture. It was sincerely believed that there would be a markedly improved quality of picture. Second, there was thought to be a need for a multiplicity of channels, and it was felt that this would be possible on 625 lines, but would not be possible without interference to other transmitting countries on 405. Third, an important consideration, it was felt that we should get into the main stream of European development, and that this would be assisted by our adoption of scanning standards similar to those of other European countries.
In the light of later developments, these considerations, though right at the time, have been proved to be wrong. First, picture quality. We have now had two years' experience of transmission on 625 lines, and I think that the general view is that the quality of picture is not superior to that on 405 lines. Indeed, a Gallup poll conducted in the London area very recently has shown that 80 per cent. of viewers receiving both channels are of the opinion that pictures on 405 lines are every bit as good as 625, if not actually better. The I.T.A. survey which has been made, and whose results will shortly be published will, I believe, confirm those figures.
Experience has shown that we do not need the multiplicity of wavebands which once was thought to be required. We have discovered that colour can be added to 405-line transmission with v.h.f. without increasing interference at all. So far as Europe is concerned, once again the reasons have been proved to be ill-founded. We all know that European transmissions are now being made by five different transmission systems. Therefore we are not, in fact, using identical scanning standards.
The final factor in relation to Europe is that it has now been shown that electronic conversion from 625 to 405 lines and vice versa is perfectly feasible. This was not understood at the time of the original decision, and is another factor which ought now to be considered. We have also discovered, in two years' experience, that we get very much inferior coverage with 625 lines than was originally expected. I know that extra gap filling transmitters are being introduced and that a large number of gap


filling boosters are being considered, but I do not believe that even these will be adequate to achieve a wide coverage with 625 lines.
Television engineers are saying that 625-line transmission requires a transmitter up every lamp-post. This may be an exaggeration, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be already aware of the difficulties and that they have resulted in the fact that we shall not, for a measurable period of time, get universal coverage in this country with 625-line transmission without incurring enormous expense. He knows that already the expense has been doubled. The original estimate for conversion to 625-line transmission was £25 million. That figure has now been doubled to a cost of £50 million; and we still have not got anything like universal coverage.
It has been reliably estimated by people in the business who have no vested interest in either form of transmission that to supply 625-line coverage to every part of Britain will cost £1,000 million in the next 10 years. These, of course, are considerations which were not available at the time of the original decision. For all these reasons very many interested people, as the I.T.A. has stated publicly, now believe that the decision to transmit colour on 625 lines only and to convert entirely to 625 lines was a wrong decision, and that, although there may have been good reasons for it at the time it should now be reconsidered.
I now turn very briefly to what were the objections to 405-line transmission. Largely, they were negative. There was the consideration of integration with Europe. That has now been overcome and it has been shown that v.h.f. 625 lines would not assist in this way. There was the question of interference. That, too, has been overcome. There was the question of electronic conversion. This has now been found perfectly possible.
Now to concentrate on what I think would be the outstanding advantages of a decision, even at this late date, to allow colour transmission on 405 lines with v.h.f. First, I believe it would make a colour service available to everybody virtually immediately. The cost of modification of transmitters, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, would be negligible. Programmes are, in fact, already avail-

able, and many of them are being exported to overseas countries and are being seen in this country in black and white only. It would merely be the matter of modification of the sets.
It would make colour television available on a number of services, with a choice, so that colour television would not become the monopoly of one service. It would have the conspicuous advantage that foreign programmes which are being shown in this country now in black and white could be shown here in the colour in which they have been recorded.
A further advantage of allowing colour on 405 lines would be that it would be of immense help to our industries who would like to export television equipment. Regrettably, there is no demand for our present dual standard black and white sets, and I believe that this type of conversion would increase the possibilities for the export market.
These advantages may very well commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt he has already been made aware of these factors. I do not criticise the original decision, but at the time when it was made there was no real unanimity amongst the various experts who gave evidence. That is clear from the Report of the Royal Commission, which shows that there was a wide diversity of opinion among the various independent companies, between the manufacturers and even within the B.B.C. itself about what should be the decision. There was no unanimity then, and although they probably came to the right decision in the light of the information then available it is surely necessary that this decision should now be reviewed.
If the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers will review it without prejudice, and look again at their former decision, they will come to the conclusion, I believe, that the wisest thing to do now would be to allow colour transmission on 405 lines. If that decision were made, it would give us a real possibility of having universal colour television in this country almost immediately. It would assist the television companies. It would assist the companies which manufacture television equipment. And, very rapidly, it would place us near the top of the world's television league table once again.

1.3 a.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) for raising the subject of colour television and giving me the opportunity, once again, to explain the Government's decision about it.
The decision was announced on 3rd March of this year. It was that colour television should be introduced on the 625-line definition standard. The hon. Gentleman's theme is that the decision is welcome, so far as it goes, but that the service should not be confined to transmission on the 625-line definition standard and so to B.B.C. 2, which is at present the one service transmitted on that standard.
Let me make it clear at once that the Government's decision did not represent a change of policy. It represented a reaffirmation of the policy decided upon by the previous Government. That in itself does not make it right, of course, but it did not represent a change of policy.
The previous Government announced its policy in this respect in its first White Paper on Broadcasting (Command 1770), published in July, 1962. That accepted the Pilkington Committee's recommendation, which was unanimous, that colour television should start on 625 lines on and, meanwhile, no public colour service on 405 lines should be authorised.
The view that it should be confined to 625 lines was not new, even then. It was the view expressed in 1960 by the Television Advisory Committee. In a report recommending the use of the 625 line standard, the T.A.C. said of colour that it should only be introduced using the line standards which were ultimately to be adopted for monochrome transmission.
Again, as recently as last year, the T.A.C. reviewed the matter. It reexamined it, and, last December, only a few months ago—I agree, with the I.T.A.'s representative dissenting—it recommended, in effect, that the decision taken in 1962 by the Government of the day should be reaffirmed.
I should like to examine the considerations which led to this decision of the T.A.C. in December last. There were four main considerations. First, that given

the decision to change the line standard from 405 to 625 lines it would be a step in the wrong direction to start colour on 405 lines. It seems to me that to do this would be to call into question the whole policy of making the change of standards. As I understood the hon. Gentleman's speech, I think that he was calling into question the whole of that policy.
Secondly, that dual standard colour sets would be more expensive to instal and to maintain, and would be so complex as to jeopardise the success of a colour service. In advocating a dual standard colour set, the hon. Gentleman is not asking for a marginal addition to the colour receivers now being designed and developed. He is asking for a kind of receiver against which the T.A.C. put a very big question mark indeed.
Thirdly, that sets designed to receive colour on both line standards would cost appreciably more—it is estimated from 7 per cent. to 10 per cent.—than sets designed for 625 line colour only.
Fourthly, that it is questionable whether a 405 line colour transmission would permit of an acceptable quality of colour reception for those with colour receivers, or of black and white reception for those without. There would be a prospect that the quality of reception would be degraded for the overwhelming majority, who will not for many years to come possess colour sets.
I should like to comment on the hon. Gentleman's argument about the size of B.B.C. 2's potential audience. There are two points here. It is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, quite true that the population coverage reached by transmissions of B.B.C. 2 has to be built up, and this is being done. At Question Time today I announced a further step forward. By the end of 1967 it is estimated that 65 per cent. of the total population will be able to receive B.B.C. 2, and that by the end of 1968, or very near to the end of 1968, B.B.C. 2 will be within the reach of three-quarters of the population.

Dr. Winstanley: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that 65 per cent. of the population are concentrated in limited areas of the country. If he converts his figure of population to geographical areas, he will find that he will have to give a very different percentage.

Mr. Short: All I am saying is that 65 per cent. of the population live in an area covered by B.B.C. 2.
In the early years, a major factor determining the size of potential audiences for colour programmes will be the cost of colour sets, and not the size of present audiences for 405 line programmes. As my right hon. Friend my predecessor said during the debate in March, estimates of the cost of sets suggest that their price will start at about £250 each. On this footing, industry estimates that about 150,000 colour sets might be in use about two years after the service starts, and that in each of the next two-year periods about 250,000 might be sold. Therefore, at a point in time about five to six years ahead, one must think of less than 1 million colour sets in use.
Thus, though the reaffirmation of the decision to provide a colour service on 625 lines only means that it will start on B.B.C. 2, it does not mean that the population coverage of the service will, even in the early years, be too restricted. At the same time, given the expected rate of growth of colour set ownership, it will be several years before the audiences for colour programmes will be so large as to give B.B.C. 2 a real competitive advantage.
Next, there is the question of the quality of the 625 line picture, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. The hon. Gentleman referred to the preliminary audience research which suggests that some viewers consider the picture to be inferior to the 405-line picture.
Here again, however, we must be very careful to avoid confusion. B.B.C. 2 is transmitted in u.h.f. and the transmission characteristics of u.h.f. differ from those of v.h.f., in which the two 405-line programmes are broadcast. This is true whatever the line definition standard used. It has always been recognised that because u.h.f. transmission conforms more nearly to the "line-of-sight" its range is shorter than that of v.h.f., and it is more easily impeded by intervening obstacles. Coverage, within the overall transmission area, is patchier.
So, although it would be wrong to minimise the task of securing, for a u.h.f. service, a population coverage comparable with that of the v.h.f. services, provided sets are really within the transmission area, and provided that they

have a proper aerial, a thoroughly acceptable picture is provided by u.h.f. Certainly, to make the best of the transmission it will be found desirable to make more use of communal aerials. And, for filling in some of the "holes" in the transmission area, relay by wire will have a more important part to play than in the case of v.h.f., and, indeed, will have a more important part to play, in the future, in all our homes.
But let me make one thing quite clear: given proper reception of the signal, whether transmitted in u.h.f. or v.h.f., the 625-line standard provides a better picture than the 405-line standard. This is why it is important to pursue the objective of getting the existing 405-line service changed over on to the improved standard, so that in the longer term all services are transmitted on 625 lines. The Television Advisory Committee is studying the question of the method to be adopted, and the timing; and my right hon. Friend had already asked the Chairman, Sir Willis Jackson, when he expects to complete it. There have been some suggestions that the difficulties will prove insuperable. That there are difficulties has always been recognised. It would be quite wrong to try to minimise them. But it would be altogether premature to conclude that they cannot be surmounted.
The hon. Member for Cheadle drew attention to the export possibilities in television equipment. We would all agree with him that we ought to be in a position to export television equipment. But I do not see how the observation that there is little overseas demand for dual standard black-and-white sets helps his case, for he is asking for a dual standard black-and-white and colour receiver, and I cannot see what overseas demand for this there can be. I have made careful inquiries about the question of exports and I understand, on the best advice that I can get, that the potential is not so much in sets as in components and capital equipment.
My right hon. Friend my predecessor, in March, said:
Given an early start there is a prospect of a net gain of £10 million exports …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1576.]
To sum up, it would be wrong to take a step the effect of which would be to perpetuate dual-standard television


broadcasting. The complexity of a dual-standard colour set would be such as to put the success of a colour service at risk, I am convinced. There is a doubt whether 405-line transmission of colour would permit of the satisfactory reception of the transmission as a black-and-white picture—and this is how, for years to come, the great majority of viewers will receive the transmission. Finally, the export opportunity stands the best chance

of being realised if there is an early decision to make a start in colour.
I hope that the hon. Member for Cheadle will feel able to agree that, on these considerations, it was right to reaffirm the decision to start colour on the 625-line standard only.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter-past One o'clock.